MASTER PLAN UPDATE CHATTANOOGA METROPOLITAN AIRPORT

VOLUME 1 OF 2: Technical Report

Prepared For CHATTANOOGA METROPOLITAN AIRPORT AUTHORITY Chattanooga, Tennessee

July 2010 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Volume 1 of 2)

INTRODUCTION ...... i CHAPTER 1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM ...... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.2 Committees ...... 1-1 1.3 Public Information Workshops ...... 1-1 1.4 Timing ...... 1-2 1.5 Issues ...... 1-2 1.6 Public Meetings of May 11, 2009 ...... 1-3 1.6.1 User’s Group Comments on the Airport Development Concepts ...... 1-3 1.6.2 The Technical Advisory Group Comments on the Airport Development Concepts ... 1-3 1.6.3 Public Information Workshop Number One ...... 1-4 1.7 Public Information Workshop of June 1, 2010 ...... 1-4 CHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.2 Background ...... 2-1 2.3 Airfield/Airspace ...... 2-2 2.3.1 Runway 2-20 ...... 2-2 2.3.2 Runway 15-33 ...... 2-2 2.3.3 Navigational Aids ...... 2-2 2.3.4 Taxiway System ...... 2-4 2.3.5 Apron Areas ...... 2-4 2.3.6 Airspace Environment ...... 2-5 2.3.7 Instrument Procedures ...... 2-5 2.4 Commercial Passenger Terminal Area ...... 2-8 2.4.1 Commercial Service Passenger Terminal ...... 2-8 2.4.2 Access, Circulation, and Parking ...... 2-9 2.5 General Aviation Facilities ...... 2-14 2.5.1 Fixed Base Operator ...... 2-14 2.5.2 Other General Aviation Facilities ...... 2-15 2.6 Cargo Facilities ...... 2-15 2.7 Support Facilities ...... 2-15 2.7.1 Air Traffic Control Tower ...... 2-15 2.7.2 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Facility ...... 2-16 2.7.3 Airport Maintenance Facilities ...... 2-17 2.7.4 Utilities ...... 2-17 2.8 Regional Setting and Land Use ...... 2-17 2.8.1 Airport Land Use ...... 2-17 2.8.2 Airport Height Zoning Restrictions ...... 2-21 2.9 Environmental Overview ...... 2-21 2.9.1 Floodplains ...... 2-21 2.9.2 Wetlands ...... 2-21 CHAPTER 3 AVIATION FORECASTS ...... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ...... 3-1 3.2 Historical Activity Review ...... 3-1 3.2.1 Regional Commercial Service Airports ...... 3-2 3.2.2 Location and Other Characteristics of Regional Airports ...... 3-3 3.2.3 Airlines Providing Service ...... 3-4

Table of Contents TOC-i FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.2.4 Domestic Airlines Serving Regional Airports ...... 3-4 3.2.5 Markets Served ...... 3-5 3.2.6 Airport Efforts to Improve Air Service ...... 3-6 3.2.7 Market Share ...... 3-7 3.2.8 Annual Enplaned Passengers ...... 3-7 3.2.9 Annual Aircraft Operations ...... 3-9 3.3 Factors Affecting Future Aviation Demand ...... 3-11 3.3.1 Impact of September 11, 2001 ...... 3-11 3.3.2 National Economic Conditions ...... 3-12 3.3.3 Identification of the Air Service Area ...... 3-12 3.3.4 Local Socioeconomic Conditions ...... 3-13 3.3.5 Major Employers ...... 3-15 3.3.6 Airline Hubs in Atlanta and Nashville ...... 3-17 3.3.7 Airfares ...... 3-17 3.3.8 Low Cost Airline Access to Atlanta ...... 3-18 3.3.9 Airline Competition ...... 3-18 3.4 Enplaned Passenger Forecast ...... 3-18 3.4.1 Market Share Analysis ...... 3-18 3.4.2 Trend Analysis ...... 3-22 3.4.3 Regression Analysis ...... 3-25 3.4.4 FAA Terminal Area Forecast ...... 3-28 3.4.5 Indexed TAF ...... 3-30 3.4.6 Presentation of the Enplaned Passenger Forecast ...... 3-32 3.4.7 The Preferred Forecast ...... 3-34 3.5 Air Cargo ...... 3-36 3.5.1 Industry Developments ...... 3-36 3.5.2 Carrier Consolidations and Acquisitions ...... 3-37 3.5.3 Mail ...... 3-37 3.5.4 Global Trends ...... 3-37 3.5.5 Cargo Operations at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport ...... 3-38 3.5.6 Regional Air Cargo Operations ...... 3-41 3.5.7 Chattanooga Monthly Peaks ...... 3-43 3.5.8 Cargo Forecasts for Chattanooga ...... 3-44 3.6 Based Aircraft Forecast ...... 3-46 3.7 Aircraft Operations Forecast ...... 3-48 3.7.1 FAA TAF Operations Forecast ...... 3-48 3.7.2 Master Plan Forecast of Operations ...... 3-50 3.7.3 Commercial Service Operations Forecast ...... 3-51 3.7.4 Military and General Aviation Operations ...... 3-53 3.7.5 Total Operations ...... 3-55 3.7.6 Instrument Operations ...... 3-56 3.8 Design Day / Design Hour Activity Forecast ...... 3-59 3.9 Comparison With the FAA Terminal Area Forecast ...... 3-63 3.10 Summary of Forecasts ...... 3-71 CHAPTER 4 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS ...... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ...... 4-1 4.2 Emerging Trends ...... 4-1 4.2.1 Increased Low Cost Carrier Activity ...... 4-1 4.2.2 Very Light Jets ...... 4-2 4.2.3 Departure of the Tennessee Air National Guard ...... 4-3 4.2.4 Potential Increase in Cargo Activity at Chattanooga ...... 4-3

Table of Contents TOC-ii FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

4.3 Airfield Requirements ...... 4-4 4.3.1 Airfield Capacity Analysis ...... 4-4 4.3.2 Runway Requirements ...... 4-7 4.3.3 Taxiway Requirements ...... 4-19 4.3.4 Electronic, Visual, and Satellite Aids to Navigation ...... 4-21 4.4 Commercial Service Passenger Terminal Complex ...... 4-22 4.4.1 Gates ...... 4-22 4.4.2 Commercial Service Passenger Terminal Building ...... 4-27 4.4.3 Curbfronts ...... 4-35 4.4.4 Key Commercial Service Passenger Terminal Complex Trigger Points ...... 4-36 4.5 General Aviation Requirements ...... 4-37 4.5.1 Based Aircraft Storage Areas ...... 4-37 4.5.2 Based Aircraft Tie-down Aprons ...... 4-38 4.5.3 Itinerant Aircraft Parking Aprons ...... 4-39 4.5.4 FBO Administration, Pilot Facilities and General Aviation Terminal ...... 4-39 4.5.5 FBO Automobile Parking ...... 4-40 4.5.6 Second FBO Facilities ...... 4-40 4.5.7 Very Light Jet Facilities ...... 4-45 4.6 Air Cargo Requirements ...... 4-46 4.6.1 Existing Air Cargo Facilities ...... 4-46 4.6.2 Cargo Terminal Planning Metrics ...... 4-46 4.7 Support Facilities ...... 4-48 4.7.1 Air Traffic Control Tower ...... 4-48 4.7.2 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting ...... 4-48 4.7.3 Fuel Storage ...... 4-48 4.7.4 Airport Maintenance ...... 4-53 4.8 Circulation and Parking Requirements ...... 4-53 4.8.1 Terminal Area Circulation ...... 4-53 4.8.2 Parking ...... 4-56 4.9 Summary of Facility Requirements ...... 4-69 CHAPTER 5 DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ...... 5-1 5.2 Development and Evaluation of Alternatives Process ...... 5-2 5.3 Identification of Airport Element Alternatives ...... 5-3 5.3.1 Airfield Improvements ...... 5-3 5.3.2 Legend of Alternatives ...... 5-6 5.3.3 Commercial Service Passenger Terminal and Parking Complex ...... 5-6 5.3.4 Second Fixed Base Operator ...... 5-13 5.3.5 Conventional Hangars ...... 5-17 5.3.6 T-Hangars ...... 5-23 5.3.7 Air Cargo ...... 5-28 5.3.8 Maintenance Center ...... 5-31 5.3.9 Airport Business Park ...... 5-32 5.3.10 Greenways ...... 5-33 5.3.11 Enhanced Airport Entrances ...... 5-35 5.3.12 First Evaluation of Alternatives ...... 5-39 5.4 Airport Development Concepts ...... 5-43 5.4.1 Common Elements in the Airport Development Concepts ...... 5-43 5.4.2 Airport Development Concept One ...... 5-44 5.4.3 Airport Development Concept Two ...... 5-47 5.4.4 Airport Development Concept Three ...... 5-51

Table of Contents TOC-iii FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

5.5 Evaluation of Alternatives ...... 5-55 5.5.1 Evaluation of Terminal/Parking Alternatives ...... 5-55 5.5.2 Evaluation of Second FBO Alternatives ...... 5-56 5.5.3 Evaluation of Conventional Hangar Alternatives ...... 5-57 5.5.4 Evaluation of T-Hangar Alternatives ...... 5-58 5.5.5 Evaluation of Air Cargo Alternatives ...... 5-59 5.6 Recommended Alternative ...... 5-60 CHAPTER 6 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN ...... 6-1 6.1 Introduction ...... 6-1 6.2 Airport Layout Plan Set ...... 6-2 6.2.1 Cover Sheet ...... 6-2 6.2.2 Airport Layout Plan ...... 6-2 6.2.3 Facilities Layout Plan ...... 6-2 6.2.4 Terminal Area Plan ...... 6-2 6.2.5 Airport Airspace Drawing ...... 6-2 6.2.6 Inner Portion of the Approach Surface for Runway 02/20 ...... 6-3 6.2.7 Inner Portion of the Approach Surface for Runway 15/33 ...... 6-3 6.2.8 On-Airport Land-Use Plan ...... 6-3 6.2.9 Airport Property Map ...... 6-3 6.3 Airport Compliance With FAA Design Standards ...... 6-3 6.4 Airport Layout Plan Highlights and Modifications ...... 6-4 CHAPTER 7 FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...... 7-1 7.1 Introduction ...... 7-1 7.2 Proposed Capital Improvement Program Projects ...... 7-2 7.2.1 Short-Term Capital Improvement Program Projects ...... 7-2 7.2.2 Short-Term Projects Summary ...... 7-4 7.2.3 Medium-Term Capital Improvement Projects ...... 7-7 7.2.4 Medium-Term Projects Summary ...... 7-10 7.2.5 Long-Term Capital Improvement Program Projects ...... 7-13 7.2.6 Long-Term Project Summary ...... 7-15 7.3 Capital Improvement Program Costs ...... 7-19 7.4 Environmental Considerations ...... 7-22 7.4.1 Forms of Environmental Analysis ...... 7-22 7.4.2 Areas of Potential Environmental Impact ...... 7-23 7.4.3 Agency Coordination and Permitting ...... 7-27 7.4.4 Environmental Summary ...... 7-28 CHAPTER 8 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ...... 8-1 8.1 Introduction ...... 8-1 8.2 Enabling Legislation ...... 8-1 8.3 Financial Framework ...... 8-2 8.3.1 Commercial Passenger Airlines ...... 8-2 8.3.2 Passenger Parking Facilities Management Agreement: Republic Parking Systems . 8-3 8.3.3 Rental Car Agreement: Avis ...... 8-3 8.3.4 Rental Car Agreement: Budget ...... 8-4 8.3.5 Rental Car Agreement: Enterprise ...... 8-4 8.3.6 Rental Car Agreement: Hertz ...... 8-4 8.3.7 Rental Car Agreement: National ...... 8-5 8.3.8 Additional CMAA Leases ...... 8-5 8.4 Recommended Alternatives Projects Summary ...... 8-6 8.5 Additional Capital Improvements ...... 8-8 8.6 Potential Funding Sources ...... 8-9

Table of Contents TOC-iv FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

8.6.1 Federal Aviation Administration – Aviation Trust Fund ...... 8-9 8.6.2 Overview and Status of the Airport Improvement Program ...... 8-12 8.6.3 Obligations and Assurances ...... 8-14 8.7 Airport Improvement Program ...... 8-14 8.7.1 Passenger Service Entitlement Grants ...... 8-14 8.7.2 Cargo Service Entitlement Grants ...... 8-15 8.7.3 Discretionary Grants ...... 8-15 8.7.4 Economic Stimulus ...... 8-19 8.7.5 Facilities and Equipment Program ...... 8-19 8.8 Tennessee Department of Transportation ...... 8-19 8.8.1 Finance and Grant Management ...... 8-19 8.9 Third Party/Tenant Financing ...... 8-20 8.10 Transportation Security Administration ...... 8-21 8.11 Non-Traditional Funding Sources ...... 8-21 8.12 Local Funding Requirement – Short-Term Capital Projects ...... 8-27 8.13 FAA Approved Passenger Facility Charges ...... 8-27 8.14 Contract (Customer) Facility Charges ...... 8-28 8.15 CMAA’S Remaining Funding Requirement ...... 8-28 8.15.1 Airport Cash Flow and Reserves ...... 8-30 8.16 Local Funding Requirement: Medium-Term and Long-Term Capital Projects ...... 8-30 8.17 Issuance of Public (Municipal) Debt ...... 8-33 8.17.1 General Obligation Bonds ...... 8-33 8.17.2 General Airport Revenue Bonds ...... 8-33 8.17.3 Industrial Development Bonds/Economic Development Bonds and Special Facility Bonds ...... 8-34 8.17.4 Short-Term Financing Instruments ...... 8-34 8.18 Financing CMAA’s Remaining Local Requirement ...... 8-35 8.19 Allocation of Average Annual Debt Service to Project Elements ...... 8-37 8.20 Historical Financial Information ...... 8-38 8.20.1 Airport Revenues ...... 8-38 8.20.2 Airport Expenses ...... 8-41 8.20.3 Operating Surplus ...... 8-41 8.20.4 Non-Operating Revenues ...... 8-41 8.20.5 Non-Operating Expenses ...... 8-41 8.21 Pro Forma Cash Flow ...... 8-42 8.21.1 Airport Revenues ...... 8-42 8.21.2 Operating Expenses ...... 8-46 8.21.3 Pro Forma Cash Flow Analysis Summary ...... 8-47 8.22 Summary ...... 8-48

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Airport Layout ...... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Chattanooga Regional Airspace ...... 2-6 Figure 2-3 Chattanooga Low-Altitude Enroute Chart ...... 2-7 Figure 2-4 Commercial Passenger Terminal Facility ...... 2-8 Figure 2-5 Regional Highway Network ...... 2-10 Figure 2-6 Vicinity Map ...... 2-11 Figure 2-7 On-Airport Parking ...... 2-13 Figure 2-8 ARFF Facility ...... 2-16 Figure 2-9 Existing Land Use ...... 2-19

Table of Contents TOC-v FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 2-10 Future Land-Use Changes ...... 2-20 Figure 2-11 Floodplain Map ...... 2-22 Figure 2-12 Wetlands Map ...... 2-23 Figure 3-1 Geographic Region ...... 3-3 Figure 3-2 Chattanooga Metropolitan Statistical Area ...... 3-13 Figure 3-3 Historical Market Share ...... 3-19 Figure 3-4 Historical Annual Percentage Change in Enplanements ...... 3-22 Figure 3-5 Chattanooga 2007 Monthly Freight (Pounds) ...... 3-43 Figure 4-1 IFR and VFR Airfield Configurations ...... 4-6 Figure 4-2 Terminal Roadway System ...... 4-54 Figure 5-1 Airfield Improvements ...... 5-4 Figure 5-2 Location of Alternatives ...... 5-6 Figure 5-3 Terminal/Parking Alternative One ...... 5-7 Figure 5-4 Terminal/Parking Alternative Two ...... 5-9 Figure 5-5 Terminal/Parking Alternative Three ...... 5-10 Figure 5-6 Terminal/Parking Alternative Three Ground Level ...... 5-11 Figure 5-7 FBO Alternative One ...... 5-13 Figure 5-8 FBO Alternative Two ...... 5-14 Figure 5-9 FBO Alternative Three ...... 5-15 Figure 5-10 FBO Alternative Four ...... 5-16 Figure 5-11 Conventional Hangars Alternative One ...... 5-17 Figure 5-12 Conventional Hangars Alternative Two ...... 5-18 Figure 5-13 Conventional Hangars Alternative Three ...... 5-19 Figure 5-14 Conventional Hangars Alternative Four ...... 5-20 Figure 5-15 Conventional Hangars Alternative Five ...... 5-21 Figure 5-16 Conventional Hangars Alternative Six ...... 5-22 Figure 5-17 T-Hangars Alternative One ...... 5-23 Figure 5-18 T-Hangars Alternative Two ...... 5-24 Figure 5-19 T-Hangars Alternative Three ...... 5-25 Figure 5-20 T-Hangars Alternative Four ...... 5-26 Figure 5-21 T-Hangars Alternative Five ...... 5-27 Figure 5-22 Air Cargo Alternative One ...... 5-28 Figure 5-23 Air Cargo Alternative Two ...... 5-29 Figure 5-24 Air Cargo Alternative Three ...... 5-30 Figure 5-25 Maintenance Center ...... 5-31 Figure 5-26 Airport Business Park ...... 5-33 Figure 5-27 Southern Greenway ...... 5-34 Figure 5-28 Northern Greenway ...... 5-35 Figure 5-29 Shepherd Road ...... 5-36 Figure 5-30 Shepherd Road Airport Entrance ...... 5-37 Figure 5-31 Enhanced Shepherd Road Entrance ...... 5-38 Figure 5-32 Enhanced Jubilee Drive Airport Entrance ...... 5-39 Figure 5-33 Airport Elements Common to All Airport Development Concepts ...... 5-43 Figure 5-34 Airport Development Concept One ...... 5-46 Figure 5-35 Airport Development Concept Two ...... 5-50 Figure 5-36 Airport Development Concept Three ...... 5-54 Figure 5-37 Temporary Surface Parking Lot ...... 5-61 Figure 5-38 Recommended Alternative ...... 5-65 Figure 6-1 ALP Drawing Set Cover Sheet ...... 6-5 Figure 6-2 Airport Layout Plan ...... 6-6 Figure 6-3 Facilities Layout Plan ...... 6-7

Table of Contents TOC-vi FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 6-4 Terminal Area Plan ...... 6-8 Figure 6-5 Airport Airspace Drawing ...... 6-9 Figure 6-6 Inner Portion of the Approach Surface for Runway 02/20 ...... 6-10 Figure 6-7 Inner Portion of the Approach Surface for Runway 15/33 ...... 6-11 Figure 6-8 On-Airport Land-Use Plan ...... 6-12 Figure 6-9 Airport Property Map ...... 6-13 Figure 7-1 Short-Term CIP Projects ...... 7-5 Figure 7-2 Medium-Term CIP Projects ...... 7-11 Figure 7-3 Long-Term CIP Projects ...... 7-17 Figure 8-1 Aviation Trust Fund Funding Sources ...... 8-11 Figure 8-2 FAA Funding ...... 8-12 Figure 8-3 Historical AIP Authorization and Appropriation 1982-2009 ...... 8-13

TABLE OF TABLES Table 2-1 Taxiway Summary ...... 2-4 Table 2-2 Public Parking Facilities ...... 2-12 Table 2-3 Airport-Owned ARFF and Emergency Response Equipment ...... 2-16 Table 3-1 Tennessee and Georgia Commercial Airport Rankings ...... 3-2 Table 3-2 Distance to Regional Airports ...... 3-4 Table 3-3 History of Airlines Serving the Airport ...... 3-4 Table 3-4 Airlines Serving Regional Airports ...... 3-5 Table 3-5 Primary Hub Airports ...... 3-6 Table 3-6 Airline Market Share ...... 3-7 Table 3-7 Historical Enplanements ...... 3-8 Table 3-8 Historical Operations ...... 3-10 Table 3-9 Historical and Demographic Information ...... 3-14 Table 3-10 Share of Employment by Business Type ...... 3-15 Table 3-11 Largest Manufacturing Employers in the MSA ...... 3-16 Table 3-12 Largest Non-Manufacturing Employers in the MSA ...... 3-16 Table 3-13 Market Share Analysis ...... 3-21 Table 3-14 Trend Analysis ...... 3-24 Table 3-15 Regression Analysis ...... 3-26 Table 3-16 Summary Output of a Regression Analysis ...... 3-27 Table 3-17 FAA 2008 Terminal Area Forecast ...... 3-29 Table 3-18 Indexed TAF ...... 3-31 Table 3-19 Summary of Enplaned Passenger Forecasts ...... 3-33 Table 3-20 Preferred Enplanement Forecast ...... 3-35 Table 3-21 Boeing Global Air Cargo Forecasts ...... 3-38 Table 3-22 Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport's Total Cargo (Short Tons) 1997-2006 ...... 3-39 Table 3-23 Total Cargo by Carrier (Pounds) July 2007 ...... 3-39 Table 3-24 Total Cargo Market Share by Carrier July 2007 ...... 3-39 Table 3-25 Principal U.S. Domestic Fleets for Chattanooga Integrated Carriers ...... 3-40 Table 3-26 Regional and Peer Group Airports Cargo Tonnage (Short Tons) 1997-2006 ...... 3-41 Table 3-27 Monthly Freight Totals (Pounds) Transported by Freighters in 2007 ...... 3-44 Table 3-28 2007 Monthly Freighter Landings ...... 3-44 Table 3-29 Air Cargo Forecast (Short Tons) - "Base Case" 2007-2027...... 3-45 Table 3-30 Cargo Tonnage (Short Tons) Forecast – “High Case” ...... 3-46 Table 3-31 Based Aircraft Forecast ...... 3-47 Table 3-32 FAA TAF Operations Forecast ...... 3-49 Table 3-33 Historical Commercial Operations ...... 3-51

Table of Contents TOC-vii FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-34 Commercial Operations Forecast ...... 3-52 Table 3-35 Forecast of General Aviation and Military Operations ...... 3-54 Table 3-36 Total Operations Forecast ...... 3-55 Table 3-37 Primary Instrument Operations ...... 3-57 Table 3-38 Summary of Total Instrument Operations ...... 3-58 Table 3-39 Monthly Distribution of Annual Enplanements ...... 3-60 Table 3-40 Monthly Distribution of Annual Total Operations ...... 3-61 Table 3-41 Design Day/Design Hour for the Selected Commercial Passenger Forecast ...... 3-62 Table 3-42 Comparison of the FAA 2008 TAF and the Preferred Enplanement Forecast ...... 3-64 Table 3-43 Comparison of FAA 2008 TAF and the Preferred Total Operations Forecast ...... 3-65 Table 3-44 Comparison of FAA 2007 TAF and the Preferred Based Aircraft Forecast ...... 3-66 Table 3-45 Summary Comparison of the Preferred Forecast to FAA 2008 TAF ...... 3-68 Table 3-46 Forecast Levels, Growth Rates, and Operational Factors ...... 3-69 Table 3-47 Summary of the Selected Forecast ...... 3-73 Table 4-1 Aircraft Classifications ...... 4-4 Table 4-2 Aircraft Operational Fleet ...... 4-5 Table 4-3 Peak Hour Airfield Capacity ...... 4-7 Table 4-4 Aircraft Approach Category and Airplane Design Group ...... 4-8 Table 4-5 Airport Reference Code Groups of Aircraft ...... 4-9 Table 4-6 Runway Dimensional Criteria ...... 4-10 Table 4-7 Runway Protection Zone Dimensions ...... 4-11 Table 4-8 Low Cost Carrier Hubs and Aircraft Fleet ...... 4-12 Table 4-9 Distances Between Chattanooga and Selected Destinations ...... 4-13 Table 4-10 Aircraft Runway Length Requirements ...... 4-14 Table 4-11 Runway Declared Distances ...... 4-16 Table 4-12 Runway Pavement Design Strength ...... 4-17 Table 4-13 Aircraft Impacts on Runway Pavement ...... 4-17 Table 4-14 Runway Designations ...... 4-19 Table 4-15 Taxiway Dimensional Criteria ...... 4-20 Table 4-16 Electronic and Satellite Aids to Navigation ...... 4-21 Table 4-17 Visual Aids to Navigation ...... 4-22 Table 4-18 Existing Commercial Service Aircraft Parking Positions ...... 4-23 Table 4-19 Enplanements per Gate Methodology ...... 4-23 Table 4-20 Departures per Gate Methodology ...... 4-23 Table 4-21 Increase in Gates Based on Percent of Increase in Annual Operations ...... 4-24 Table 4-22 Gates Based on Projected Schedules ...... 4-24 Table 4-23 Recommended Number of Gates ...... 4-25 Table 4-24 Aircraft Fleet Mix per Planning Period Based on Projected Schedules ...... 4-25 Table 4-25 Forecast of Required Gate by Aircraft Design Group ...... 4-26 Table 4-26 Gate Apron Area and Terminal Frontage per Planning Period ...... 4-26 Table 4-27 Summary of Existing and Forecast Commercial Service Terminal Areas ...... 4-28 Table 4-28 Existing Departure Lounge Capacity ...... 4-29 Table 4-29 Forecast of Departure Lounges ...... 4-30 Table 4-30 Forecast of Check-In Positions ...... 4-31 Table 4-31 Forecast of Baggage Claim Facilities ...... 4-32 Table 4-32 Forecast of Passenger Screening Security Checkpoint Facilities ...... 4-33 Table 4-33 200 Persons per Hour Federal Inspection Facilities ...... 4-34 Table 4-34 Existing Terminal Curbs ...... 4-35 Table 4-35 Forecast of Terminal Curbs ...... 4-35 Table 4-36 Key Commercial Service Passenger Terminal Area Trigger Points ...... 4-36 Table 4-37 Forecast of Based Aircraft ...... 4-37

Table of Contents TOC-viii FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-38 Forecast of Conventional Hangar Space and Apron ...... 4-38 Table 4-39 Forecast of T-Hangar Space and Aprons ...... 4-38 Table 4-40 Forecast of Based Aircraft Tie-Down Areas ...... 4-39 Table 4-41 Forecast of Itinerant Aircraft Parking Areas ...... 4-39 Table 4-42 Forecast of Second FBO Conventional Hangar Space and Apron ...... 4-41 Table 4-43 Forecast of Additional T-Hangars, Area, and Apron ...... 4-41 Table 4-44 Forecast of Second FBO Based Aircraft Tie-Down Areas ...... 4-42 Table 4-45 Forecast of Second FBO Itinerant Aircraft Parking Positions ...... 4-42 Table 4-46 Potential FBO Administration, Pilot, and Passenger Facilities ...... 4-43 Table 4-47 Second FBO Automobile Parking Spaces ...... 4-44 Table 4-48 Summary of Facilities for a Second FBO ...... 4-44 Table 4-49 Planning Guidelines for Air Cargo Terminals ...... 4-47 Table 4-50 Planning Guidelines for Air Cargo Ramp ...... 4-47 Table 4-51 Total Fuel Storage Facilities ...... 4-50 Table 4-52 Fuel Storage Capacity for a Second FBO ...... 4-52 Table 4-53 Existing and Recommended Terminal Roadway Capacities ...... 4-55 Table 4-54 Peak Hour Vehicles on Terminal Roadway System ...... 4-55 Table 4-55 Parking Supply ...... 4-56 Table 4-56 Airline Market Share ...... 4-57 Table 4-57 Parking Occupancy - Public Lots ...... 4-59 Table 4-58 Public Parking Demand Projections ...... 4-60 Table 4-59 Parking Occupancy - Employee Lot ...... 4-62 Table 4-60 Employee Parking Demand Projections ...... 4-63 Table 4-61 Rental Car Spaces ...... 4-63 Table 4-62 Rental Car Ready/Return Parking Demand Projections ...... 4-64 Table 4-63 Daily Commercial Vehicle Trips ...... 4-66 Table 4-64 Parking Supply/Demand Summary ...... 4-67 Table 4-65 Parking Requirements in Acres ...... 4-68 Table 4-66 Summary of Facility Requirements ...... 4-69 Table 5-1 Existing Runway Declared Distances ...... 5-4 Table 5-2 Proposed Runway Declared Distances ...... 5-5 Table 5-3 Airport Element Alternatives ...... 5-41 Table 5-4 Airport Development Concept One Airport Elements ...... 5-45 Table 5-5 Airport Development Concept Two Airport Elements ...... 5-49 Table 5-6 Airport Development Concept Three Airport Elements ...... 5-53 Table 5-7 Evaluation of Terminal/Parking Alternatives ...... 5-55 Table 5-8 Evaluation of Second FBO Alternatives ...... 5-56 Table 5-9 Evaluation of Conventional Hangar Alternatives ...... 5-57 Table 5-10 Evaluation of T-Hangar Alternatives ...... 5-58 Table 5-11 Evaluation of Air Cargo Alternatives ...... 5-59 Table 5-12 Recommended Alternative Airport Elements ...... 5-63 Table 7-1 Short-Term Capital Improvement Program Costs in 2009 Dollars ...... 7-19 Table 7-2 Medium-Term Capital Improvement Program Costs in 2009 Dollars ...... 7-20 Table 7-3 Long-Term Capital Improvement Program Costs in 2009 Dollars ...... 7-21 Table 7-4 Total Capital Improvement Program Costs in 2009 Dollars ...... 7-21 Table 8-1 FY 2010 Airline Rates and Charges ...... 8-3 Table 8-2 Avis Rentals ...... 8-4 Table 8-3 Budget Rentals ...... 8-4 Table 8-4 Enterprise Rentals ...... 8-4 Table 8-5 Hertz Rentals ...... 8-5 Table 8-6 National Rentals ...... 8-5

Table of Contents TOC-ix FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 8-7 Additional Agreements and Leases ...... 8-6 Table 8-8 Short-Term Development Period ...... 8-7 Table 8-9 Medium-Term Development Period ...... 8-7 Table 8-10 Long-Term Development Period ...... 8-8 Table 8-11 Additional Capital Improvements ...... 8-8 Table 8-12 Recommended Alternative and Costs ...... 8-17 Table 8-13 Additional CIP Projects ...... 8-18 Table 8-14 Short-Term Capital Projects Funding Plan ...... 8-23 Table 8-15 Medium-Term Capital Projects Funding Plan ...... 8-24 Table 8-16 Long-Term Capital Projects Funding Plan ...... 8-25 Table 8-17 Short-Term Capital Projects Local Funding Plan ...... 8-29 Table 8-18 Unrestricted Cash Reserves ...... 8-30 Table 8-19 Medium-Term Capital Projects Local Funding Plan ...... 8-31 Table 8-20 Long-Term Capital Projects Local Funding Plan ...... 8-32 Table 8-21 Medium and Long Term Capital Projects Bond Sizing ...... 8-36 Table 8-22 Medium and Long-Term Capital Projects Allocation of Debt Service ...... 8-37 Table 8-23 Medium and Long-Term Capital Projects Debt Service Funding Sources ...... 8-38 Table 8-24 Historical Revenues and Expenses ...... 8-39 Table 8-25 Pro Forma Cash Flow ...... 8-43 Table 8-26 Projected Airline Cost per Enplaned Passenger ...... 8-44 Table 8-27 Debt Service - 2009 Bonds ...... 8-47

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Volume 2 of 2)

APPENDICES

A. Glossary of Terms, Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... A-1 B. Public Involvement Program...... B-1 B.1 Technical Advisory Committee and User’s Group Members B.2 Technical Advisory Committee Presentations and Meeting Minutes B.3 Users Group Presentations and Meeting Minutes B.4 Public Information Workshop Boards, Public Comments, and Sign-In Sheets B.5 Public Information Workshop Boards, Public Comments, and Sign-In Sheets C. Aviation Forecast Data ...... C-1 D. Aircraft Takeoff Weight Calculations ...... D-1 E. Detailed passenger Terminal Area Requirements ...... E-1 F. Projected Airline Schedules...... F-1 G. Cost Estimates ...... G-1

Table of Contents TOC-x FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

INTRODUCTION

The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority (CMAA) owns, operates, and maintains the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport (Airport), located in Chattanooga Tennessee. The Airport provides commercial air transportation, General Aviation (GA), cargo, and other aviation related services to southeast Tennessee and north Georgia.

In May of 2007, CMAA selected Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc, (RS&H) as the Prime Consultant to prepare an update to the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport’s 2002 Airport Master Plan. CMAA determined the update was necessary to direct future development at the Airport because of increased passengers, landside parking constraints, cargo infrastructure, environmental issues, and the need for considering long-term expansion alternatives of the Airport’s facilities and infrastructure.

Presented in this airport master plan update are an evaluation of the Airport’s existing facilities and an identification of actions recommended to meet the current and future air transportation needs of the region. The overall update process involved individual study elements that provided detailed examinations of the existing Airport infrastructure and operating methodologies.

The study format followed in this airport master plan update is consistent with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) suggested format as described in Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans. This airport master plan update contains the following chapters:

 Public Involvement Program – Encourages information sharing and collaboration, and identify the key issues of various stakeholders.

 Existing Conditions – A gathering of pertinent data for use in subsequent plan elements.

 Aviation Forecasts – Forecasts of future levels of aviation activity are the basis for the determination of the need for new or expanded facilities.

 Facility Requirements – The determination of what, if any, additional facilities will be required to accommodate the forecast activity by assessing the ability of the existing facilities to meet current and future demand and, if they cannot, determine the additional facilities required.

 Development and Evaluation of Alternatives – Identification and evaluation of alternatives for meeting the needs of the airport users, as well as the strategic vision of the airport sponsor.

 Airport Layout Plan Set – The preparation of drawings that make up the Airport Layout Plan (ALP), which is a graphic representation of the current and future airport facilities as determined from the review of the aviation forecasts, facility requirements, and alternatives analysis.

 Facilities Implementation Plan – Provides guidance on how to implement the findings and recommendations of the planning effort typically including a schedule, a listing of key projects, project descriptions, timing of key activities, estimated development costs, interrelated projects, and special considerations..

 Financial Feasibility Analysis – Identifies potential funding sources and demonstrates the airport sponsors ability to fund the projects in the master plan with particular emphasis on the projects expected to be implemented in the near term.

Introduction i FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

In addition to the components noted above, various appendices are provided to supplement the text as appropriate. The appendices include a glossary of terms used in the master plan update and meeting minutes of the Public Involvement Program, as well as supplemental data.

Introduction ii FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

CHAPTER 1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

1.1 INTRODUCTION

A public involvement program is an essential part of the Master Plan Update as it will encourage information sharing and collaboration. Involved parties include:  The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport  The users  Tenants  Resource agencies  Elected and appointed public officials  Residents  Travelers  The public

Collectively, these various groups form the stakeholders who have an interest in the outcome of the study. An effective public involvement program should provide these stakeholders with an early opportunity to comment, before major decisions are made; provide adequate notice of opportunities for their involvement; and should provide for regular forums throughout the study.

1.2 COMMITTEES

Two committees assisted the Airport and the Master Plan Team throughout the Master Plan process:  The Technical Advisory Committee  The User’s Group

The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was responsible for providing input and insight on detailed operating and facilities issues as they pertained to the Airport and specific elements of the Master Plan Update. They evaluated the Master Plan Update on its technical merits. This committee was made up of local and regional planning organizations, the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TNDOT), and the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) personnel, among others.

The User’s Group was made up primarily of community leaders and served as a sounding board and information exchange group for the stakeholders. This committee weighed recommendations made in the Master Plan Update against community goals, values, and needs. Both committees reviewed the planning team’s plans and proposals and interacted with the planning team members during the review. The User’s Group also made consensus recommendations to the planning team and gave its recommendation on the finished plan to the Airport. Both committees were advisory and had no decision making power of their own. A complete list of the participants of each committee can be found in Appendix B.

1.3 PUBLIC INFORMATION WORKSHOPS

Two Public Information Workshops were held during the course of the Master Plan Update. The purpose of these meetings was to inform the public of the process and the progress made. Further goals were to obtain public response and input and to coordinate planning objectives with the

Public Involvement 1-1 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

needs and concerns of local community organizations and the public at large in a timely fashion, so as to enhance public acceptance of the study’s findings and recommendations.

Each Public Information Workshop was held in an informal “open house” format with interactive information stations staffed by knowledgeable Airport staff or members of the planning team. This permitted the public and other stakeholders to visit the meeting site at their convenience and visit with planners on a one-to-one basis. Information could be exchanged and the public was given the opportunity to record their views, opinions and concerns either in writing or verbally.

1.4 TIMING

The first meeting with the Technical Advisory Committee was held shortly after the commencement of the Master Plan Update on September 7, 2007. The first meeting of the User’s Group and the second meeting of the TAC took place after data on the existing conditions at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport had been collected and documented and the Aviation Forecasts had been developed and submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for review and approval. Each committee met separately, but on the same day, January 17, 2008.

The next meeting of both committees took place on the same day as the first Public Workshop, May 11, 2009. These meetings occurred after the FAA approved the Aviation Forecasts, Facility Requirements were developed, and Alternatives had been developed to address facility deficiencies identified in the Facility Requirements. Both committees and the public were informed of the progress made to that point and their opinions and ideas were sought and recorded. Only after these opinions and ideas had been received, reviewed, and addressed were the Alternatives evaluated and a recommended alternative selected.

The last meetings of the committees and the second Public Information Workshop will take place after the recommended alternative has been selected, refined, and translated into specific Airport Layout Plans. An Implementation Plan complete with scheduling, phasing, and preliminary costing and funding will have been developed. Each of these will be reviewed with the committees and the public and their views and concerns will be recorded and addressed prior to the completion of the Master Plan Update.

Meeting minutes of the TAC and User’s Group as well as documentation of the Public Information Workshops will be found in Appendix B, which will be updated as future meetings take place.

1.5 ISSUES

A preliminary list of key issues to be addressed in the Airport Master Plan Update was developed by the Airport staff. These issues were reviewed with the Technical Advisory Committee in their meeting of September 7, 2007 and additional issues were identified and consolidated with the preliminary list. This resulted in the following issues to be addressed by the Master Plan Update:

 Provide realistic parking solutions to provide sufficient passenger vehicular parking.

 Develop a consolidated, efficient plan for general aviation activities that will allow them the maximum potential to grow, while not adversely affecting other Airport activities.

 Identify the issues causing flooding in certain areas of the Airport and develop plans to improve the drainage of these areas.

Public Involvement 1-2 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

 Determine and evaluate the prospects for cargo expansion at the Airport and develop plans for the conditions and resources required to attract significant cargo operations.

 Create a plan for the Airport to remain an efficient user-friendly airport, while implementing capacity to meet aviation demands and the needs of the community to the year 2026.

 Create a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that identifies funded projects, unfunded projects, priorities, and potential sources of funds.

 Provide clear justification of CIP projects.

 Meet FAA design, safety, and security standards for the entire Airport.

This Master Plan Update will address these issues in detail, and discuss practical solutions that will allow the Airport to sustain further growth during the planning period

Each of the Airport Development Concepts was presented to the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority, the Technical Advisory Committee, and the User’s Group and their comments were solicited. The Airport Development Concepts were also presented to the public in the First Public Information Workshop.

1.6 PUBLIC MEETINGS OF MAY 11, 2009

On May 11, 2009, three Public Involvement meetings were held with respect to the Chattanooga Master Plan Update. The three meetings were with the Technical Advisory Committee, the User’s Group, and the first public Information Workshop. At each meeting, the participants were updated on the progress of the study and were shown alternatives for the long-term, 20-year development of the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. Comments from the public and each of the committees were solicited. Meeting minutes of the Technical Advisory Committee and the User’s Group can be found in Appendix B. Written comments from the Public Information Workshop can also be found in Appendix B.

1.6.1 User’s Group Comments on the Airport Development Concepts

Within the User’s Group, the comments and questions were more broad and general in nature. However, in general the User’s Group was receptive to the idea of upgrading those areas of the Airport that adjoin Brainerd Road/Lee Highway. Meeting minutes of the User’s Group Meeting can be found in Appendix B.

It was stated that rather than a mounted Cessna jet at the Jubilee Drive entrance that something coming from the Art in Public Places program would be preferred. The Airport staff indicated that it was anticipated that the jet would be donated.

Suggestions were made to move the parking garage in Terminal Alternative 2 to the north to avoid blocking the view of the terminal from Airport Road. It was also felt that the railroad line that runs east of the Airport and in front of the Airport terminal should connect to downtown Chattanooga.

1.6.2 The Technical Advisory Group Comments on the Airport Development Concepts

The Technical Advisory Group (TAC) had some very specific comments and suggestions to make concerning the various Airport Development Concepts and specific alternatives. Meeting minutes for the Technical Advisory Committee can also be found in Appendix B.

Public Involvement 1-3 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

The air traffic controllers were concerned about the height of the maintenance center. It was cautioned that when planning and designing the facility that line of sight issues with respect to the runway ends, taxiways, and aprons should be studied very carefully.

Of the T-hangar alternatives, the TAC preferred T-hangar Alternative Two and T-hangar Alternative Four. With these two alternatives, it was felt that the air traffic controllers would have better visibility between the buildings than with T-hangar Alternative Five.

Of the air cargo alternatives, Air Cargo Alternative One and Air Cargo Alternative Three were preferred. It was felt that Air Cargo Alternative Two would need a lot of work done to the apron and that the apron would have to be made deeper to serve cargo adequately. Of Air Cargo Alternatives One and Three, it was appreciated that the cargo trucks could travel down Jubilee Drive to a stoplight at Brainerd Road, and could then travel directly to Interstate 75.

1.6.3 Public Information Workshop Number One

Comments were received in two ways from the Public Information Workshop: comment cards that could be filled out at the meeting or mailed in later, and comments could and were e-mailed to the planning team members. In general, the comments mainly concerned the interface of the Airport and the surrounding neighborhoods. Some comments are summarized in this section. All comments received in writing from the Public Information Workshop can be found in Appendix B.

Concern was expressed over the existing noise from C-130 military training flights. Another concern was that an increase in the number of air cargo flights would generate more noise.

Positive comments were received with respect to the proposed greenways, especially the Southern Greenway. It was felt that this change would markedly improve the appearance of the neighborhood.

Concern was also expressed about the possibility of increased Airport related vehicular traffic on Brainerd Road and Lee Highway. It was felt that there was already too much traffic on this road.

1.7 PUBLIC INFORMATION WORKSHOP OF JUNE 1, 2010

On June 1, 2010, a second Public Information Workshop was held at the Brainerd Crossings community center to update the public on the progress of the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Master Plan Update and to solicit comments. As the public entered the room in which the meeting was held, they were invited to view a short PowerPoint presentation that explained what a Master Plan is, the Goals and Objectives of this Master Plan Update, and a short synopsis of the first Public Information Workshop. After the PowerPoint, there were a number of boards set up on easels illustrating the Recommended Alternative, breaking it into phases and individual projects, and presenting cost estimates and probable funding sources for each of the individual projects.

The public was invited to give written comments in one of three ways. First, comment cards were provided that could be submitted that evening. Second, the comment cards could be taken home and mailed. Third, e-mails to the consultant could be sent within a period of about ten days. Written comments from the Public Information Workshop, as well as copies of the PowerPoint presentation and the Presentation Boards can be found in Appendix B.

Public Involvement 1-4 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

CHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The Existing Conditions chapter documents the existing conditions of the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport and identifies the area it serves. The material in this chapter provides essential background information for the Master Plan. The objective is to provide background information for subsequent phases of the analysis. This information was obtained through on-site investigations of the Airport, as well as interviews with Airport management, fixed base operators, and tenants. Other sources are the collection and analyses of Airport data, previous reports, and studies. The pertinent data presented here provides information associated with the following:

 Airport Background  Airfield/Airspace  Commercial Passenger Terminal Area  General Aviation Facilities  Cargo Facilities  Support Facilities  Regional Setting and Land-use  Environmental Overview

2.2 BACKGROUND

The first scheduled air carrier operation in Tennessee took place in Chattanooga in 1928 at Marr Field, located off the Amnicola Highway. Chattanooga was a stopover on the Contract Air Mail route served by Interstate Airlines between Atlanta, Georgia and Chicago, Illinois. Soon, in 1930, due to the interest and foresight of John Lovell, a new Chattanooga Airport was established with an unpaved runway at its present location and was named Lovell Field in his honor. In 1936, the landing area was expanded and runways paved as a part of the New Deal’s Works Progress Administration (WPA). The original terminal building was also built at that time and expanded in 1950 and 1955 by the City of Chattanooga before being replaced by a new terminal building in 1964. That terminal was replaced approximately 30 years later by the current commercial passenger terminal.

Lovell Field served as a military training facility throughout World War II. Post-war growth in aviation in the 1950s led to a transfer of its operations to the City of Chattanooga and significant airport expansion with construction of a new runway, which serves as the primary runway today.

The Airport ownership was transferred from the City of Chattanooga to the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority (CMAA) in July of 1985. The Tennessee Metropolitan Airport Authority Act1 provides that the CMAA’s basic operations be governed by the terms set forth in the Metropolitan Airport Authority Act, as well as by the CMAA by-laws. As a separate legal entity, the CMAA is authorized to adopt operating procedures, policies, and requirements separate from those in use by the City of Chattanooga and to establish and charge fees, rentals, and other charges. Federal airport grant assurances (49 U.S.C. 47107(a) (13)), require airports that accept federal money to be as self-sustaining as possible. Because the CMAA does not receive local tax

1 Metropolitan Airport Authority Act, Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 42-4-101, as amended

Existing Conditions 2-1 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

dollars, it must raise money through other means. This is done through contracts, licenses, permits, and leases issued both for aeronautical and non-aeronautical airport purposes, and through fees charged to offset the cost of regulation of certain activities.

The Board of the CMAA consists of nine commissioners. The City of Chattanooga appoints all Airport Authority Board members. The day-to-day management of the Airport is carried out through the President of the CMAA and a staff of aviation professionals.

2.3 AIRFIELD/AIRSPACE

The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport’s airfield facilities include the runways, taxiways, apron areas, visual aids, and navigational aids. These airfield assets are operable within an aeronautical environment associated with the local, regional, and national system of airports. The aeronautical environment includes the surrounding airspace and the aeronautical activity that takes place within the airspace, including arrival and departure procedures. The following sections provide a description of the airfield and airspace associated with the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport.

2.3.1 Runway 2-20

The dimensions and characteristics of a runway are dependent on the aircraft that use the airport and the design standards associated with those types of aircraft. The orientation of the runways depends on the direction of the prevailing wind patterns, the size and shape of the area available for development, and the land-use or airspace restrictions near the airport.

The primary runway at the Airport, based upon predominant runway use, is Runway 2-20, which has a length of 7,400 feet and a width of 150 feet, as shown in Figure 2-1. The runway pavement is grooved asphalt and is in good condition, based on the 2005 Pavement Study conducted by Dynatest. The runway is equipped with centerline lights, as well as High Intensity Runway Lights (HIRL) and has precision instrument markings on both ends.

The approach lighting consists of a Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR) on the Runway 2 end. The Runway 20 end is equipped with a High Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced Flashing Lights. The Runway 2 end also has a Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) to assist landing aircraft.

2.3.2 Runway 15-33

The crosswind runway is Runway 15-33, which has a length of 5,575 feet and a width of 150 feet. The pavement is in excellent condition as a runway rehabilitation and extension have recently been completed. The runway is equipped with Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL) and has non- precision instrument markings on both ends. The Runway 15 end is equipped with a PAPI, while the Runway 33 end is equipped with a PAPI to assist landing aircraft.

2.3.3 Navigational Aids

Navigational aids (NAVAIDs) assist the pilot with enroute navigation and approaches into and departures out of airports. These aids consist of both ground–based electronic systems and a space-based radio system.

Existing Conditions 2-2 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Source: G-Squared Mapping N

i Figure 2-1 AIRPORT LAYOUT NAVAIDs in use at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport include two Instrument Landing Systems (ILS), a Runway Visual Range (RVR) transmissometer, a segmented circle with a lighted wind

Existing Conditions 2-3 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

cone, and the Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-8). A Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) facility is located approximately five miles southeast of the airfield and serves aircraft utilizing the Airport.

2.3.4 Taxiway System

The primary function of a taxiway system is to provide access between runways and the apron areas. Taxiway A serves as a parallel taxiway to Runway 2-20. The taxiway provides access from the commercial passenger terminal area to both the Runway 2 end and the Runway 20 end and is in good condition. Taxiway D serves as a full parallel taxiway to Runway 15-33 and is in good condition.

There are several exit taxiways used to access both the commercial passenger terminal area as well as provide access for the Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facility. A description of each taxiway is provided in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 TAXIWAY SUMMARY Pavement Taxiway Width Condition Taxiway A 60 ft. Good Taxiway B 75 ft. Good Taxiway C 60 ft. Good Taxiway D 60 ft. Excellent Taxiway E 60 ft. Fair Taxiway F 75 ft./ 60 ft. Good Taxiway G 75 ft./ 60 ft. Good Taxiway H 75 ft. Excellent Taxiway J 60 ft. Excellent Taxiway K 60 ft. Fair Taxiway Z 60 ft. Excellent Source: Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, 2007 and 2005 Pavement Study, Dynatest

2.3.5 Apron Areas

The air carrier apron serving the commercial passenger terminal concourse is constructed of concrete and is in good condition. The apron area totals approximately 225,000 square yards.

The apron area just north of the air carrier apron is known as TAC Air North. TAC Air, a division of Truman Arnold Companies, is the Fixed Base Operator (FBO) at the Airport. The TAC Air North apron is of asphalt construction and is in fair condition. It is approximately 98,000 square yards in size and primarily serves general aviation aircraft.

Directly south of the air carrier apron is the apron area known as TAC Air South. This apron is of concrete construction and in good condition. It is approximately 62,000 square yards in size and primarily serves general aviation aircraft.

Further to the south is located a combination cargo and general aviation apron that is of concrete construction and in poor condition. The area of the apron used for cargo totals approximately 30,000 square yards, while the general aviation portion totals approximately 150,000 square yards.

Existing Conditions 2-4 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

There are several smaller apron areas on the west side of the airfield. These include the ARFF apron that is approximately 34,000 square yards in size and is in excellent condition. There are also two general aviation aprons that total approximately 45,000 square yards in size. Both aprons are in excellent condition.

2.3.6 Airspace Environment

The national airspace system consists of various classifications of airspace that are regulated by the FAA. Airspace classification is necessary to ensure the safety of all aircraft using the facilities. The primary function of airspace classification is to separate air traffic. The airspace associated with Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is depicted on the Atlanta Sectional Aeronautical Chart shown in Figure 2-2.

The airspace surrounding the Airport is designated as Class C airspace during the period of 6:00 am to 11:50 pm eastern standard time (EST). At all other times the airspace is designated as Class E airspace. The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Class C airspace consists of a five nautical mile (NM) radius around the airfield that extends from the surface up to 4,000 feet above ground level (AGL) and a 10 NM radius shelf area that extends from various altitudes (due to the surrounding terrain) up to 4,000 feet AGL. There exists an “outer area”, not depicted in Figure 2-2, which is associated with the Airport’s Class C airspace and extends out for a 20 NM radius around the Airport.

The Airport has a Federal Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) that operates during the 6:00 am to 11:50 pm EST period. Aircraft operating under both Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) must maintain contact with the ATCT when operating within the Airport’s Class C airspace. During the hours that the ATCT is not in operation, IFR traffic must maintain contact with Atlanta Center.

There are several Victor airways near the Airport. A Victor airway serves as a sort of “highway in the sky” between NAVAIDs that aircraft frequently use to navigate while enroute. While these airways provide enroute navigation, navigational procedures between the Airport and the airways themselves is provided by published instrument approaches and departure procedures. Airways and associated NAVAIDs near the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport are depicted in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3.

Instrument approaches and departures at the Airport are controlled through Chattanooga Approach and Departure Control as well as Atlanta Center. All aircraft into and out of the Airport may also utilize the services provided by the Nashville Flight Service Station (FSS). In addition, aircraft enroute to, or near the Airport may receive pertinent weather information from the Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) station located on the airfield.

Several areas of “special use” airspace located east of the Airport include Alert Area A-685 and the Snowbird Military Operations area. Alert areas are those areas that may contain a high volume of pilot training or an unusual type of aerial activity, while a Military Operations Area allows for separation between military activities and IFR operations.

2.3.7 Instrument Procedures

Instrument procedures associated with an airport can include standard terminal arrivals (STAR), departure procedures (DP), and published instrument approach procedures.

Existing Conditions 2-5 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Source: National Aeronautical Charting Office, 2006

Figure 2-2 CHATTANOOGA REGIONAL AIRSPACE

Existing Conditions 2-6 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Source: National Aeronautical Charting Office, 2007

Figure 2-3 CHATTANOOGA LOW-ALTITUDE ENROUTE CHART

Existing Conditions 2-7 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

The instrument approach procedures are further classified as non-precision and precision approaches. Non-precision approaches differ from precision approaches in that they provide only horizontal guidance information, while precision instrument approaches provide both horizontal and vertical guidance information. With the addition of vertical guidance information, precision approaches enable aircraft operations in lower visibility and cloud ceilings. The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport has both non-precision and precision approaches.

2.4 COMMERCIAL PASSENGER TERMINAL AREA

The Chattanooga Metropolitan commercial passenger terminal was completed in the early 1990s and offers a modern, well-appointed, and well-maintained facility. The ground level accommodates the ticketing lobby with approximately 30 check-in counters; office and operational space for the five airlines that currently serve the Airport; a baggage claim facility that has two flat-bed baggage claim devices; offices and counters for five rental car companies; and restrooms and offices for some of the commercial passenger terminal functions.

2.4.1 Commercial Service Passenger Terminal

The public reaches the second level of the terminal via stairs, elevators and escalators located in the rotunda lobby. The second level accommodates the offices of the Airport administration, a restaurant concession, a gift shop, and a passenger waiting area. All of these functions are located on the non-secure side of the Airport. The Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) passenger security screening checkpoint, which has one security lane, is also located on the second level. On the secure side of the passenger-screening checkpoint, there are five departure lounge areas with associated gates. There is also a business center, restrooms, and a small snack-bar/newsstand in the secure area.

Figure 2-4 COMMERCIAL PASSENGER TERMINAL FACILITY

Existing Conditions 2-8 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

2.4.2 Access, Circulation, and Parking

Convenient, simple, and efficient access to the commercial passenger terminal is an integral part of an airport system. Airport access consists of connecting roadways that enable airport users to enter and exit the airport, on-airport circulation, and parking facilities.

Off-Airport Access Roads

Ease of passenger access to an airport is an important factor for airport customer service. Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is located near both Interstates 24 and 75, on the east side of downtown Chattanooga. Interstate 24 predominantly runs southeast from Nashville to Chattanooga, and then merges into Interstate 75. Interstate 75 runs north and south from Michigan to the west coast of Florida, and is the main Interstate from Chattanooga to Atlanta, Georgia. US 11/64 (Lee Highway) runs west from the Airport to the downtown Chattanooga area, while State Route 153 is located east of the Airport and runs north to meet US 27, approximately 10 miles north of downtown. Figure 2-5 shows the regional highway network for the Chattanooga area.

Passenger access to the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is gained from State Road 153 located west of the Airport via the Shepherd Road/Airport Connector Road. The Airport can also be accessed directly from Airport Road, which constitutes the eastern boundary of the commercial passenger terminal area. Figure 2-6 shows ground access in the immediate area of the Airport.

On-Airport Circulation

On-airport circulation consists of both public access roads and non-public airport service roads. Access to the commercial passenger terminal and associated parking lots is provided via a two- lane “loop road” accessed from both the Airport Connector Road and Airport Road. The short- and long-term parking lots can be accessed from the left lane of the loop road, while both lanes continue around the parking areas and to the terminal curbfront. The interim parking lot can be accessed from the right lane of the loop road just prior to the commercial passenger terminal. Once in front of the terminal, the loop road becomes four lanes that split into two groups of two to allow through traffic to flow more easily. Past the terminal curbfront, the loop road once again narrows to two lanes and provides access to the rental car ready/return spaces, as well as access back to Shepherd Road via the Airport Connector Road and Airport Road. The traffic exiting the short-, interim- and long-term parking lots are routed back onto the loop road.

Access to the TAC Air North FBO facility is provided via Airport Road, while access to TAC Air South is provided from an un-named Airport road that is accessed from Airport Road. Access to the general aviation and cargo facilities on the south side of the Airport is provided via Pinehurst Road, which is accessed from Airport Road. General aviation facilities on the northwest side of the airfield are accessed by way of the Lovell Field Loop via Airport Road. The ARFF facilities on the west side of the airfield are accessed via a perimeter roadway, which can be accessed from Brainerd Road and sits atop the Brainerd Levee.

Existing Conditions 2-9 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 2-5 REGIONAL HIGHWAY NETWORK

Existing Conditions 2-10 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 2-6 VICINITY MAP

Existing Conditions 2-11 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Airport Parking

An airport typically provides short- and long-term public parking facilities to accommodate passenger demand. The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport also has an interim-term public parking lot. The on-airport surface parking lots are operated by Republic Parking Systems. They are located directly south and east of the commercial passenger terminal as shown in Figure 2-7. Table 2-2 shows the current number of spaces and rates for the on-airport passenger parking facilities. Table 2-2 PUBLIC PARKING FACILITIES Facility Spaces Fee Structure Short-term 173 15 Minutes Free, $1.00 Each Additional 30 Minutes, $12.00 Per Day Interim 220 15 Minutes Free, Each Additional 30 Minutes $.75, $7.00 Day Long-term 739 $1.00 Hour, $7.00 Day Source: Republic Parking Systems, 2007

The public parking supply has been strained in recent years due to the rapid growth and popularity of travel from the Airport. The long-term parking spaces are often 100 percent utilized during the middle of the week and travelers must use inconvenient off-airport parking areas.

Recently, the Airport constructed a temporary, gravel parking lot south of the terminal parking facilities. This lot is served by a shuttle operated by the Airport and has an additional 150 spaces to those listed above. Airport employees were using 80 to 85 public parking spaces in the terminal parking area, but are now required to park near the maintenance facility and take the shuttle to the terminal.

Rental Car Facilities

Five on-airport rental car agencies and one off-site agency serve the Airport. The following sections provide a brief description of each of the on-airport agencies.

AVIS The Avis Rent A Car System currently has 21 employees that work at both the commercial passenger terminal counter and the Quick Turn Around (QTA) facility located east of the terminal area. Directly south of the commercial passenger terminal, Avis uses 22 ready/return spaces. The QTA is a wash, and re-fueling facility that has approximately 150 auto storage spaces, one automated wash facility, and a 10,000 gallon unleaded fuel tank. Avis also performs light maintenance at this facility.

BUDGET The Avis/Budget Group also operates the Budget Rent A Car franchise. Both Budget and Avis utilize the same 21 employees, but have separate facilities. Budget operates an off-site QTA facility located on nearby Sheppard Road and uses 12 ready/return spaces south of the commercial passenger terminal building. The QTA facility includes one automated wash facility, a 2,500 gallon unleaded fuel tank, and a 2,500-gallon diesel fuel tank.

Existing Conditions 2-12 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Source: G-Squared Mapping N

i Figure 2-7 ON-AIRPORT PARKING

Existing Conditions 2-13 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

ENTERPRISE The Enterprise Rent-A-Car has four full-time employees, three part-time employees, and one manager to run its on-airport operations. Enterprise uses 13 ready/return spaces and does not store any additional cars nearby, but uses cars from its other locations. Fueling, light maintenance, and automobile cleaning are all done at local gas stations and wash facilities not associated with Enterprise.

HERTZ The Hertz Corporation has 35 employees to run its on-airport operations at both the commercial passenger terminal counter and their QTA facility located south of the long-term parking lot. Hertz uses 27 ready/return spaces in the lot southeast of the terminal, and stores a small number of additional cars at its QTA facility. The QTA facility includes one automatic car wash and a 10,000 gallon unleaded fuel tank.

NATIONAL National Car Rental occupies 23 ready/return spaces in the terminal lot and has capacity for 100 automobiles in storage at its QTA facility located east of the Airport. No light maintenance is performed at the QTA facility, but it does include an area to hand wash the automobiles, as well as a 12,000 gallon unleaded fuel tank.

2.5 GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is a full service airport providing facilities for the general aviation sector, as well as the commercial passenger sector. The general aviation facilities at the Airport are primarily located in two areas and consist of a fixed base operator, various buildings, hangars, and apron space. All general aviation facilities at the Airport are generally located east of Runway 2/20 and north of Runway 15/33. A discussion of services provided, is in the following sections.

2.5.1 Fixed Base Operator

A Fixed Base Operator (FBO) is an airport business that provides aircraft services to pilots. Services include, but are not limited to, the sale of fuel and oil; aircraft sales, rental, maintenance, and repair; parking and tie-down or storage of aircraft; flight training; air taxi/charter operations; and specialty services, such as instrument and avionics maintenance, painting, overhaul, aerial application, aerial photography, aerial hoists, or pipeline patrol. TAC Air, a division of Texas-based Truman Arnold Companies (TAC), under contract to the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority, provides parking space for transient aircraft, aircraft storage and tiedowns, aircraft fueling, aircraft rental, and minimal air cargo services. Currently, the FBO operates out of two conventional hangars, located north and south of the commercial passenger terminal, referred to as TAC Air North and TAC Air South, respectively. These hangars are used for offices, pilots lounges, lobbies, conference rooms, and the storage of aircraft. TAC Air is the only FBO on the airfield, and they operate 23 T-hangars, which they lease to aircraft owners. TAC Air leases buildings, numbered 19 and 21, which are sub-leased to Star Avionics, and building number 10, which is used for storage.

TAC Air operates the fuel farm and their airfield crew fuel most of the GA aircraft that use the Airport. The fuel farm consists of two 15,000-gallon storage tanks and two 20,000-gallon storage tanks, all of which store Jet A fuel and are above ground. There is one underground 15,000-gallon

Existing Conditions 2-14 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

storage tank, which is used for Avgas. Approximately 262,000 gallons of Jet A fuel are dispensed each month and 12,000 gallons of Avgas are dispensed each month.

2.5.2 Other General Aviation Facilities

Additional general aviation facilities located at the Airport include maintenance facilities, forestry service facilities, and corporate hangars. Star Avionics at the south end of the airfield performs general aviation maintenance at the Airport. Star Avionics performs airframe and power plant maintenance, as well as conducts avionics sales, installation, and repair.

Directly to the north of the Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facilities is located the fire fighting wing of the United States Forestry Service. The facility includes administration buildings and apron areas to serve fire-fighting aircraft.

Several corporate hangars are located around the airfield including those associated with TAC Air. There is a privately owned hangar located at the extreme northwest corner of the airfield. East of this hangar is a second, privately owned hangar with associated fuel tanks and apron areas. Several private companies occupy this hangar.

2.6 CARGO FACILITIES

The cargo facilities at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport include those facilities dedicated to all- cargo operators, belly cargo operators, and integrated carriers. All-cargo facilities typically include an aircraft-parking apron dedicated to the loading and unloading of aircraft. Belly cargo represents cargo transported on board air carrier passenger aircraft, while integrated carriers refer to companies such as FedEx, UPS, and DHL that provide door–to-door freight transfer via ground and air.

Currently, there are two facilities on the Airport just west of the Air traffic Control Tower (ATCT) that cargo operators use as shown in Figure 2-1. The two buildings total 22,400 square feet and provide the necessary facilities for Mountain Air Cargo (FedEx) and ABX Air.

2.7 SUPPORT FACILITIES

Support facilities at an airport exist to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the airport. At Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, this encompasses a broad set of facilities including:

 The ATCT  The ARFF facility  Airport maintenance facilities  Utilities

2.7.1 Air Traffic Control Tower

The FAA’s ATCT is a 111-foot structure located east of the cargo area on the southeast portion of the airfield. The ATCT, built in 1983, is in operation from 6:00 AM to 11:50 PM EST. The facility is served by an Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) and provides Air Traffic Control (ATC) services to those aircraft approaching, departing, and traversing the Airport’s Class C airspace.

Existing Conditions 2-15 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

2.7.2 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Facility

Air carrier airports are required under 14 CFR Part 139 to provide aircraft rescue and firefighting services. The Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facility crew conducts firefighting operations and fire prevention services. More specifically, the ARFF provides emergency assistance; inspection of fuel farms, fuel trucks, and commercial sites; and guidance regarding compliance of FAA standards on safety, equipment, and training.

The ARFF Station at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is located on the west side of the airfield off Taxiway H. The building contains equipment bays, office space, a watch/alarm room, and dormitory facilities.

The Airport employs nine full time fire fighters and one fire chief. Two to three of these personnel are on duty at all times.

Based on the 14 CFR Part 139 Section 315 regulations, air carrier airports are assigned an index group based on the length of the longest air carrier aircraft that uses the airport regularly. The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport must maintain vehicles, chemicals, and response items in accordance with Index B requirements. The vehicles currently in operation at the ARFF station are listed in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3 AIRPORT-OWNED ARFF AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE EQUIPMENT Water Foam Dry Chemical Vehicle Manufacturer (Gallons) (Gallons) (lbs.) Oshkosh Striker 1,500 205 500 Titan 1,500 205 500 Ford (Rapid Response Vehicle) Numerous fire extinguishers and other equipment Source: Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, 2007

Figure 2-8 ARFF FACILITY

Existing Conditions 2-16 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

2.7.3 Airport Maintenance Facilities

The Airport owns and operates a variety of maintenance equipment used for snow removal, ground maintenance, pavement and facilities maintenance, and other activities. Maintenance vehicles and equipment are generally housed in two buildings on the southeast portion of the airfield adjacent to the cargo facilities. The larger of the two buildings measures approximately 9,700 square feet, while the smaller facility has approximately 1,600 square feet.

2.7.4 Utilities

The availability of electric power, gas, water, and sewer lines to an airport must be considered in evaluating the existing utility conditions. The public water distribution and sanitary sewage system are significant governmental responsibilities and capital investments. Natural gas and electricity are normally provided by the private sector in most areas, but can also be government responsibilities.

Water and Sanitary Sewer

Tennessee American Water provides water and sewer service. Both systems are served by a 12- inch steel main line.

Natural Gas

Natural gas is provided to the Airport by Chattanooga Gas via a four-inch line located on the west side of the airfield and a 2½ - inch line located on the east side of the airfield. Natural gas is used for heating facilities around the airfield.

Electricity

Electricity is provided by the Electric Power Board via a 2000 and 3000 AMP feed which break down to 220V and 440V feeds. This electrical power source serves all of the Airport’s facilities including airfield lighting and NAVAID equipment.

2.8 REGIONAL SETTING AND LAND USE

Airport environmental and land use inventory items are provided in this section. The two sections discuss first, airport land use, and second, airport height zoning.

2.8.1 Airport Land Use

It is important to understand the land use patterns around the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport in order to determine possible impacts to surrounding areas because of future airport development. Both existing and future land uses as anticipated by the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency (CHCRPA) are provided in this section.

The existing land use and zoning for the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is designated as Transportation by the CHCRPA. This is shown in Figure 2-9. The existing land use surrounding the Airport mostly encompasses recreational use to the west of the Airport. Commercial, residential, industrial and vacant land uses make up the majority of the land to the east and south

Existing Conditions 2-17 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update of the Airport. Industrial land uses comprise most of the land to the north of the Airport. All of these land uses are believed compatible with the Airport.

The proposed land-uses changes to area adjacent to the Airport are shown in Figure 2-10. Where the areas in Figure 2-10 are white, it indicates that the land-use is not proposed to change from the existing. The land use of areas to the north and east of the Airport are proposed to become future industrial areas, while land use to the south and west of the Airport are not expected to change in the future. Areas to the east of the Airport are proposed to become commercial. These future land uses are compatible with Airport operations.

Existing Conditions 2-18 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 2-9 EXISTING LAND USE

Existing Conditions 2-19 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 2-10 FUTURE LAND-USE CHANGES

Existing Conditions 2-20 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

2.8.2 Airport Height Zoning Restrictions

All airports have a three-dimensional system of imaginary surfaces that identifies each airport’s navigable airspace requirements as dictated by Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. FAR Part 77 establishes standards for determining obstructions and publishes the design criteria for use in constructing the imaginary surfaces profile for each specific airport. The surfaces represent an imaginary “bowl” of airspace centered on the airport with long approach surfaces extending up and outward from each runway end. These imaginary surfaces surrounding the airport are also used to analyze all existing, future and proposed tall structure construction as to their potential for creating a hazard for aircraft operating at the airport. If a natural object (i.e. a tree) penetrates into these surfaces, then it is recommended to be removed or modified. If the structure or obstacle penetrating the imaginary surfaces as defined by FAR Part 77 cannot be easily removed or modified, the FAA may extend a waiver and the structure will need to be identified by either painting, installing an obstruction light, or both. The airport’s visibility approach minimums may also be impacted (i.e. increased) due to any penetrations to the FAR Part 77 surfaces.

The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport has the imaginary surfaces mandated by FAR Part 77. These are codified in the Airport Zoning Ordinance of the City of Chattanooga, which defines the imaginary surfaces, the procedures for removal or marking of objects that penetrate the surfaces, and the penalties associated with the violation of the surfaces.

2.9 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW

Future development plans at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport should take into consideration those environmental issues that are known to exist near the Airport. Early identification of such environmental factors will greatly influence the evaluation of proposed alternatives and will assist in avoiding or reducing the impact to these areas while planning the future development.

2.9.1 Floodplains

Consideration should be given to the location of the floodplains near the Airport when planning future development. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped the floodplains located on and around the Airport. The maps depict Special Flood Hazard Areas inundated by a 100-year flood as well as other flood areas, as shown in Figure 2-11. A significant amount of area in and around the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is located within the 100-year floodplain.

2.9.2 Wetlands

Future alternatives should also consider the location of wetland areas. The National Wetlands Inventory maintains a database of wetland areas at or near the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport.

Figure 2-12 depicts wetland areas on and surrounding the Airport. These wetland areas primarily consist of those associated with the South Chickamauga Creek to the west of the Airport.

Existing Conditions 2-21 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2007 Figure 2-11 FLOODPLAIN MAP

Existing Conditions 2-22 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 2-12 WETLANDS MAP

Existing Conditions 2-23 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

CHAPTER 3 AVIATION FORECASTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Aviation forecasts for the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport are presented in this chapter for the 20- year planning period (2007-2027). Forecasts of aviation demand provide a basis for determining the type, size, and timing of aviation facility development. Consequently, the forecasts influence virtually all phases of the planning process.

Forecasting future activity involves both analytical techniques and subjective considerations. Regardless of the methodology used, assumptions must be made about how internal and external forces might change in the future. Factors that can influence aviation activity levels include regulatory policy on the local and national level, technological innovations, aviation industry trends, and local fluctuations in population, employment, and per capita personal income. The objective of forecasting is to develop a realistic measure of the potential for these changes so their effect can be estimated in a rational manner and preparations can be made to smoothly and cost effectively accommodate their impact on airport facilities. The development of aviation demand forecasts for the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is presented in the following sections of this chapter:

 Historical Activity Review  Factors Affecting Future Aviation Demand  Enplaned Passenger Forecast  Air Cargo  Based Aircraft Forecast  Aircraft Operations Forecast  Design Day/Design Hour Activity Forecast  Comparison with the FAA Terminal Area Forecasts  Summary of Forecasts

The forecasts provide activity levels for five, 10, 15, and 20-year estimates of future aviation activity at the Airport. The association of activity levels with specific periods is necessary in order to develop a schedule of improvement needs and assess the ability of the Airport to finance the recommended development plan. It is important however, to view the projections independent of specific years, and use the projections to identify trigger points for future Airport facilities. If actual growth occurs faster than anticipated, the implementation schedule should be reassessed and accelerated as necessary. Similarly, slower than projected growth may warrant deferment of planned improvements to a later date. Actual activity growth should be frequently compared to projected growth so implementation schedule corrections can be identified and implemented.

3.2 HISTORICAL ACTIVITY REVIEW

This section presents a general overview of commercial service airports in the region followed by a brief review of long-term historical trends in various elements of aviation activity at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. Elements reviewed included airlines serving the Airport, annual enplaned passengers, and annual aircraft operations.

Aviation Forecasts 3-1 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.2.1 Regional Commercial Service Airports

The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is classified as a non-hub, commercial service airport by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA’s definition of a hub is not to be confused with the designation of a city/airport used by an airline where flights are concentrated in a hub-and-spoke operating concept. The FAA definitions are important because federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding is dependent, in part, upon hub classification.

The FAA hub classifications are based on the percentage of enplanements at an airport compared to the total number of enplanements in the United States. These percentages are as follows:

 Large Hub (L) – Enplanes more than 1.0 percent of the nation’s enplaned passengers  Medium Hub (M) – Enplanes less than 1.0 percent but greater than 0.5 percent  Small Hub (S) – Enplanes less than 0.5 percent but greater than 0.25 percent  Non-Hub (N) – Enplanes less than 0.25 percent

In 2007, the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport was ranked 150th busiest airport in the nation, up eight points from the CY 2006 ranking of 158. It is the 11th largest of the 240 non-hub airports, and it is the fourth busiest commercial service airport in Tennessee as shown in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 TENNESSEE AND GEORGIA COMMERCIAL AIRPORT RANKINGS

CY 2007 ACAIS Data Hub National Annual Percent Size Rank Airport Name City State Enplanements of Total L 1 Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Atlanta GA 43,236,992 5.7% M 36 Memphis International Memphis TN 5,546,309 0.73% M 42 Nashville International Nashville TN 4,888,123 0.64% S 90 Savannah/Hilton Head International Savannah GA 992,569 0.13% S 93 McGhee Tyson Knoxville TN 889,106 0.12% N 150 Lovell Field Chattanooga TN 301,830 0.04% N 172 Tri-Cities Regional TN/VA Bristol/Johnson/Kingsport TN 212,845 0.03% N 195 Augusta Regional at Bush Field Augusta GA 154,521 0.02% N 266 Columbus Metropolitan Columbus GA 46,982 0.01% N 291 Valdosta Regional Valdosta GA 35,093 <0.01% N 284 Southwest Georgia Regional Albany GA 38,759 <0.01% N 325 Brunswick Golden Isles Brunswick GA 24,147 <0.01% N 385 Middle Georgia Regional Macon GA 11,493 <0.01% N 440 Athens/Ben Epps Athens GA 6,370 <0.01% N 707 McKellar-Sipes Jackson TN 875 <0.01% Total ALL US Airports CY 2007 762,590,503 100%

Aviation Forecasts 3-2 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.2.2 Location and Other Characteristics of Regional Airports

As can be seen from Table 3-1, there are a number of airports within Tennessee and Georgia that are close enough to the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport to attract potential passengers from the Chattanooga area. Within approximately 150 miles of Chattanooga are four major air carrier airports: Nashville to the northwest, Knoxville to the northeast, Atlanta to the southeast, and Birmingham to the southwest. A map of the airports surrounding Chattanooga is shown on Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1 GEOGRAPHIC REGION

Source: ESRI Data & Maps, 2007

Each of these airports is within two and a half driving hours on a city-to-city basis. A fifth airport is located in Huntsville, Alabama about three hours away by car. While likely not a major influence on the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport market, information on the Huntsville International Airport is also included. Key information on the five surrounding airports is provided in Table 3-2.

Aviation Forecasts 3-3 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-2 DISTANCE TO REGIONAL AIRPORTS Highway Driving City Miles Time Route Hub Size Nashville 131 2:10 I-24 Medium Knoxville 116 1:55 I-75 Small Atlanta 113 1:55 I-75 Large Birmingham 149 2:20 I-59 Small Huntsville 133 2:50 U.S. 72 Small Source: MapQuest Road Atlas, 2007 edition; FAA hub identification, 2007.

The first four of these cities are linked to Chattanooga by interstate highways that make driving relatively easy. The city of Huntsville, Alabama is 133 highway miles away, but most of the route is not on limited access highways.

3.2.3 Airlines Providing Service

Allegiant Air, American Eagle, Continental Express, Delta Connection, Northwest Airlink, and US Airways Express are serving the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport in August of 2008, although Continental Express has announced that they will pull their service from the Airport in the fall of 2008. Further, Skybus started service in April 2008. With the exception of Allegiant, all airline services to the Airport are provided by one of the “legacy” airlines. These legacy carriers are the traditional major airlines who serve most airports by means of subsidiary or affiliate carriers. The legacy airlines at the Airport who serve it with subsidiary or affiliate carriers are American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, and US Airways. The airline history of service to the Airport is shown on Table 3-3.

Table 3-3 HISTORY OF AIRLINES SERVING THE AIRPORT Airlines ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 Allegiant Air ● ● ● American Eagle ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Continental Express ● ● ● ● Delta Connection ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Northwest Airlink ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Skybus ● United Express ● ● ● US Airways ● ● ● ● ● US Airways Express ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Source: Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport records

3.2.4 Domestic Airlines Serving Regional Airports

This section identifies the domestic airlines serving Chattanooga versus the nearby airports at the end of August 2008. The airlines identified in this analysis and shown in Table 3-4 include either a “legacy” airline or its commuter affiliate associated by reservation system or other airline affiliations. The actual airline affiliate operating the service to any one-city changes frequently and multiple affiliates often serve the same airport without the passenger being able to tell one from another.

Aviation Forecasts 3-4 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-4 AIRLINES SERVING REGIONAL AIRPORTS Network Carrier Chattanooga Nashville Knoxville Atlanta Birmingham Huntsville Legacy Airlines American Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Continental Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Delta Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Northwest Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes United No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes US Airways Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Low Cost Carriers Air Tran No No No Yes No No Allegiant Yes No Yes No No No ATA No No No No No No Frontier No Yes No Yes No No JetBlue No No No Yes No No Skybus No No No No No No Southwest No Yes No Yes Yes No Spirit No No No Yes No No Other Carriers Midwest No Yes No Yes No No Source: Each airport

The legacy network airlines are represented at each of the regional airports with the exception of United that does not serve Chattanooga. Low cost carrier service is less well represented in the region, but each of the regional airports has at least one low cost carrier. Chattanooga currently has the low cost carrier Allegiant Air.

Both AirTran and Delta have major hubs in Atlanta. Southwest, which does not operate on a hub and spoke system but rather a point-to-point system, has designated Nashville as a “focus city”, which is loosely defined as an airport where more than 20 percent of Southwest’s traffic at that airport consists of transfer passengers.

Table 3-4 indicates only the domestic service available at these airports. International service, which makes up approximately five percent of United States total, is available at Atlanta. The only other airport in the region with scheduled international service is Nashville that has flights to Canada.

3.2.5 Markets Served

Since airline economic deregulation in 1978, most of the major airlines adopted a hub-and-spoke operating concept. A hub is a collecting point for traffic where passengers arrive on flights from multiple origination points, connect to other flights timed to provide multiple destination options, and depart again to their final destination. The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport operates as a spoke airport with mainline airlines and/or their commuter airlines feeding traffic to the airlines’ respective hub airports. The hub-and-spoke system is a means for a single flight from a spoke airport to have multiple one-stop markets through the hub airport. Principal hub information for the major airlines is shown in Table 3-5.

Aviation Forecasts 3-5 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-5 PRIMARY HUB AIRPORTS Airline Hub City AirTran Atlanta Alaska Seattle, Anchorage Allegiant Air Las Vegas American Dallas-Ft. Worth, Chicago (O’Hare), St. Louis, Miami Continental Houston, Newark, Cleveland Delta Atlanta, Cincinnati, Salt Lake City, Orlando Frontier Denver JetBlue New York (JFK) Northwest Detroit, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Memphis Southwest Dallas (Love Field), Chicago (Midway), Las Vegas, Phoenix, Houston (Hobby), Baltimore US Airways Philadelphia, Charlotte, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Washington DC (National) United Chicago (O’Hare), Denver, San Francisco, Washington (Dulles) Source: Individual Airlines

As a spoke airport, the air service at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is focused on the hub airports of the major and regional airlines. Most spoke airports typically have service limited to hub airports, except for some key recreational or seasonal services to cities such as Las Vegas or Orlando. The current direct markets served at the Airport fit this pattern of service:

 Allegiant Air serves Ft. Lauderdale, Orlando through Orlando Sanford International Airport, and Tampa through St. Petersburg.  American Eagle serves Dallas-Ft. Worth and Chicago O’Hare.  Continental Express serves Houston.  Delta Connection serves Atlanta and Cincinnati.  Northwest Airlink serves Memphis.  US Airways Express serves Charlotte and Washington DC (National).

This pattern of service reflects the industry trends in hub and spoke services and offers insight into potential future services. Specifically, airlines compete by offering hub services that are equal to or greater than those of other airline hubs. The objective is to maximize the size of the hub by serving as many spoke markets as feasible. This implies that hub airlines not currently serving the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport are candidates for future services to assure the competitiveness of their hub.

In addition, airlines currently serving the Airport have a reasonable expectation of providing service to multiple hubs so long as they can be served with an aircraft that serves the market in terms of size and range. This implies that the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is a potential candidate particularly for non-stop service with regional jets.

The key positive aspect of the hub-and-spoke concept for airports such as the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is numerous one-stop service destinations, available through the hub airports that would not typically be available on a non-stop basis. The negative impact is that passengers must make flight connections at the hub airport.

3.2.6 Airport Efforts to Improve Air Service

The Airport has been aggressive in efforts to increase and improve air service to the greater Chattanooga region. The Airport is seeking change and is not satisfied with the current level of

Aviation Forecasts 3-6 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

airline service. These efforts have included applying for Small Community Air Service Development Program grants and attempting to reduce the cost of airline ground handling and flight service.

The Airport recently began providing aircraft ground handling services in order to offer airlines a potentially lower cost and easier method of starting service. The Airport also now offers ticket counter personnel to provide a complete handling package, with the exception of fueling, for airlines with only a few flights a week or for those that want to outsource these services.

3.2.7 Market Share

The passenger market share for the airlines serving the Airport in calendar years (CY) 2005 through 2007 is presented in Table 3-6. As shown, Delta Connection as represented by ASA carried the largest percentage of the enplanements in all three years. Together, the three Delta Connection airlines carried between 36.2 and 64.5 percent of the enplanements during the three years.

Table 3-6 AIRLINE MARKET SHARE

CY07 Percentage CY06 Percentage CY05 Percentage Airlines Market Share Enplanements of Total Enplanements of Total Enplanements of Total Allegiant Air 45,485 14.8% 5,474 2.1% 0 American Eagle 35,170 11.4% 32,465 12.7% 27,328 10.7% Continental Express 20,196 6.6% 17,196 6.7% 4,445 1.7% Delta Connection (ACA) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Delta Connection (ASA) 75,296 24.5% 76,575 30.0% 82,291 32.2% Delta Connection (Chautauqua) 18,744 6.1% 270 0.1% 37,383 14.6% Delta Connection (Comair) 17,328 5.6% 32,774 12.9% 45,368 17.7% Northwest Airlink 30,454 9.9% 28,949 11.4% 31,323 12.2% Skybus 2,186 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% US Airways Express (Mesa) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% US Airways Express (Piedmont) 28,892 9.4% 22,672 8.9% 17,437 6.8% US Airways Express (PSA) 32,844 10.7% 37,314 14.6% 8,838 3.5% Charters 905 0.3% 1,270 0.5% 1,303 0.5% Total 307,500 100.0% 248,164 100.0% 258,745 100.0% Source : Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Records

3.2.8 Annual Enplaned Passengers

An extended history of passengers boarding commercial service aircraft, or enplanements, is presented in Table 3-7 where the blue bars represent periods of economic recession. Unless otherwise indicated in this document, all references to years are references to the Federal Fiscal Year (FY), which runs from October 1 through September 30. For example, FY 2006 would refer to the period from October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006.

Aviation Forecasts 3-7 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-7 HISTORICAL ENPLANEMENTS

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000 September 150,000 11, 2001 1978 Airline Attacks Enplanements Economic 100,000 Delta Airlines Deregulation Mainline Leaves 50,000 Airport (1996)

0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Historical Enplanements

Fiscal Total Annual Year Enplanements Increase/Decrease 1976 256,320

1981 227,759

1986 272,468

1991 274,480

1995 280,063 1996 239,318 -14.5% 1997 271,335 13.4% 1998 279,103 2.9% 1999 304,418 9.1% 2000 299,058 -1.8% 2001 278,097 -7.0% 2002 241,448 -13.2% 2003 233,982 -3.1% 2004 235,292 0.6% 2005 250,406 6.4% 2006 239,629 -4.3% 2007 296,083 23.6% Source: Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport FAA

Aviation Forecasts 3-8 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Enplanements at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport have grown at an average annual rate of 0.5 percent over the last 31 years. This minimal growth has varied with several multi-year peak and drop fluctuations in enplanements due to national and economic conditions. Between the years of 1982 and 1999 however, in spite of a few economic drops, the average annual growth rate for enplanements was 2.6 percent. In the year 2001, the Airport along with the rest of the aviation industry was negatively impacted by the recession of that year and the September 11, 2001 attacks. Recovery at the Airport took a little longer than the industry average of two years, but in the last four years the enplanements at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport have grown at an average annual growth rate of about 6.1 percent.

Prior to the growth period between the years of 1982 and 1999, the Airport experienced a period of relatively strong growth from 1976 through 1979. After approximately three years of decline (as the United States airline industry adjusted fares and service in response to deregulation and the national economic recession in the early 1980’s), enplanements at the Airport entered a second period of growth. This period of growth consisted of an underlying cycle of small expansions and contractions. Enplanement activity at the Airport has been expanding since 2003.

3.2.9 Annual Aircraft Operations

An aircraft operation is defined as either a takeoff or a landing. Table 3-8 presents a long-term history of annual aircraft operations recorded at the Airport in four categories: air carrier, commuter/air taxi (commuter), general aviation, and military. An air carrier operation represents either a takeoff or a landing of a commercial aircraft with seating capacity of more than 60 seats. Commuter operations represent scheduled commercial operations for aircraft with 60 or fewer seats and include air taxi operations, which are nonscheduled flights or for-hire flights of aircraft with 60 or fewer seats. General Aviation (GA) operations represent all civil aviation aircraft take- offs and landings not classified as commercial (air carrier or commuter) or military. Military operations are primarily those of aircraft of the United States military.

Air carrier operations were at their highest annual historical level at more than 19,500 operations in 1978. Air carrier operations declined each year through 1985, remained fairly steady through 1999 when there was a slight and brief expansion before settling down to new low levels. The air carrier operations in 2007 totaled just over 3,600.

Commuter operations have grown considerably since 1983, increasing from approximately 8,400 to a peak of more than 23,300 operations in 2002. In the last four years, commuter operations have remained relatively steady between 18,000 and 19,000 annual operations.

Until 1984, air carrier operations exceeded commuter operations. However, consistent with airline industry trends throughout the United States, Chattanooga air service became much more reliant on the commuter category aircraft as evidenced by the increase in the number of annual commuter operations relative to air carrier operations. This trend has grown even more pronounced throughout the United States in recent years. At the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, commuter operations now outnumber air carrier operations by roughly a 5 to 1 margin.

The changes in air carrier versus commuter operations are not necessarily a negative factor in the air service trend. Today, many commuter airlines operate regional jet aircraft that offer 50 seats or more. The use of regional jet aircraft has allowed a much higher level of perceived quality of service to many communities, as passenger preferences for jet aircraft relative to propeller has been demonstrated. The changes made in fleet aircraft size have contributed to this transition as

Aviation Forecasts 3-9 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-8 HISTORICAL OPERATIONS

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000 Operations 40,000

20,000

0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 Air Carrier Commuter General Aviation Military

Commercial Service General Year Air Carrier Commuter Total Aviation Military Total 1976 19,233 2,267 21,500 104,048 2,214 127,762

1981 10,308 3,825 14,133 85,148 1,594 100,875

1986 10,388 12,264 22,652 91,854 4,179 118,685

1991 8,666 16,649 25,315 77,936 5,120 108,371

1996 7,616 13,986 21,602 61,489 5,476 88,567 1997 9,123 13,204 22,327 60,875 5,762 88,964 1998 9,959 12,831 22,790 63,352 7,321 93,463 1999 7,316 16,329 23,645 70,939 10,441 105,025 2000 11,260 11,963 23,223 72,793 11,902 107,918 2001 12,364 22,548 34,912 96,372 16,063 147,347 2002 7,210 23,157 30,367 80,657 18,564 129,588 2003 5,017 19,234 24,251 59,670 13,142 97,063 2004 5,225 18,129 23,354 57,441 14,619 95,414 2005 5,006 18,429 23,435 50,855 17,822 92,112 2006 4,081 18,286 22,367 46,442 12,762 81,571 2007 3,658 18,428 22,086 44,164 10,973 77,223 Source: Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport FAA

Aviation Forecasts 3-10 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update airlines assign the most economical aircraft to the market. Since 1978, most of the major airlines have accomplished this by transitioning the services to their affiliated code share partners that operate smaller aircraft than those of the mainline carrier. Early on, these commuter aircraft were 19-seat propeller aircraft. These aircraft transitioned to 30-seat turboprop aircraft. The 30-seat turboprop aircraft appear to be transitioning to the 50-seat and larger regional jet aircraft now appearing frequently in the commuter fleet.

General aviation operations represent all civil aviation aircraft takeoffs and landings not classified as commercial (air carrier or commuter) or military. As shown in Table 3-8, general aviation operations were at their highest annual level at more than 104,000 operations throughout the late 1970’s. General aviation operations had a generally declining trend with the exception of a few spikes through 1996. From 1997 through 2001, general aviation operations experienced a spike where operations increased at an average annual growth rate of 12.2 percent to reach a high of approximately 96,300 operations. From 2002 through 2006, all previous gains were lost with total operations in 2007 of approximately 44,200.

Military aircraft operations have fluctuated within a range of approximately 1,600 to 7,300 annual operations from 1976 through 1998. From 1999 through 2005, military operations increased with peaks in 2002 and 2005 of approximately 18,600 and 17,800 operations, respectively. Military operations in 2007 totaled approximately 11,000.

Total operations at the Airport have decreased at an average annual rate of approximately negative 1.6 percent over the last 31 years. Most of the change is attributed to the decline in general aviation activity.

3.3 FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE AVIATION DEMAND

A number of factors have had a pronounced affect on the aviation activity at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. The terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, the national economy, local socioeconomic factors, airfares, and airline competition are reviewed to determine what effect these variables may have on the demand for future aviation activity at the Airport.

3.3.1 Impact of September 11, 2001

The events of September 11, 2001 had a profound impact on passenger interest in traveling in the ensuing months. All U.S. airports were negatively affected, some more than others. The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport and many other airports were impacted by the airline economic troubles that followed September 11, 2001. Service cutbacks were widespread and many smaller communities were deeply impacted.

The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport fared worse than the average of the United States as a whole. While the United States domestic airline industry’s percentage of change in passenger enplanements from the year 2000 to the year 2001 was a negative 6.1 percent, the enplanement decline at Chattanooga was a negative 7.0 percent. Furthermore, it took Chattanooga longer to recover. While the percentage change between 2001 and 2002 enplanements for the United States domestic airline industry was a negative 1.7 percent, Chattanooga suffered a negative 13.2 percent change in total enplanements. On average, it took the United States domestic airline industry approximately two years to reach the same enplanement levels it had reached in the year 2000; Chattanooga has yet to reach within a fiscal year the 299,058 enplanements it had in FY 2000. The FY 2007 enplanements approached that level at 296,083 enplanements. Calendar Year (CY) 2007 enplanements exceeded 300,000 enplanements.

Aviation Forecasts 3-11 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.3.2 National Economic Conditions

The national economy began slowing during the latter stages of 2000. Since the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War in early 1992, the national economy was in an expansion mode for a record number of quarters until 2000. On November 26, 2001, the National Bureau of Economic Research announced that the United States economy had entered its 10th recession since the end of World War II. However, the severity of the recession was not known until early 2002. Many analysts predicted the recession would last for one quarter but the economy actually declined for three consecutive quarters, starting with the first quarter of 2001. Not coincidentally, the downturn in United States domestic passenger and cargo demand also began during this same quarter.

By the third quarter of 2001, the United States economy was in full recovery with quarter-to-quarter growth in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) surging to more than 7.0 percent by the third quarter of 2003. Quarter to quarter GDP growth has remained solid for most periods varying around 3.5 to 4.0 percent.

According to revised calculations by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the United States GDP grew at 3.9 percent annually in 2005, 3.4 percent in 2006, and 1.5 percent in 2007. The FAA and other national forecasts anticipate GDP to level off in 2007 and 2008 to 2.1 percent. The long-term forecast period anticipates a growth rate of 2.6 percent. These forecasts have been considered in calculating future annual growth rates at the Airport. The timing, extent, and rate of annual growth in the United States economy and future changes in real disposable income will affect the rate of future airline traffic both nationally and at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport.

Passengers’ concerns for safety have largely diminished; however, the problematic economic conditions within the airline industry persist. Most airlines struggled to remain solvent during the economic downturn made worse by the events of September 11. Several airlines, particularly hard hit by the economic slowdown, filed for bankruptcy protection (United Airlines in 2002, US Airways in 2002, ATA Airlines in 2004, Delta Air Lines and Northwest in 2005). While conditions were improving and most airlines have now come out of bankruptcy, past occurrences illustrate the severity of the airline industry’s economic condition.

The very high cost of fuel continues to be a major economic concern for the airline industry. The high cost of fuel has caused additional airlines to declare bankruptcy and to cease operations, including Skybus, ATA, and Aloha. Every airline has cut service to some degree within the past five months and some airports have seen reductions in service of as much as 30 percent. Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport lost one flight per day of Skybus in April, and Continental will cease operating their two daily flights in the fall of 2008. This represents a reduction in seats of 10.4 percent from February 2008. However, American has announced that they will be adding an additional flight to Dallas/Fort Worth in November of 2008. This will increase the number of seats available and make the net loss in seats approximately 7.3 percent since February of 2008.

3.3.3 Identification of the Air Service Area

The prime geographic region served by an airport is referred to as an Air Service Area. The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport serves the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee and a large area surrounding the City. Chattanooga is the fourth largest city in Tennessee after Memphis, Nashville, and Knoxville. For the purposes of this report, the Chattanooga Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) will be defined as the Air Service Area because it represents the immediate geographic area surrounding the Airport and is the source of the majority of the Airport’s existing

Aviation Forecasts 3-12 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update passengers. With the introduction of the low cost carriers into the market, the Airport has been drawing from an increasingly wider area.

3.3.4 Local Socioeconomic Conditions

Consideration of a community’s economic character is particularly important to the determination of business travel, general aviation, and air cargo levels. Prior to developing the aviation demand forecasts for the Airport, current and projected economic trends and population projections associated with the Airport’s primary Air Service Area were examined. The Airport’s primary service area is the Chattanooga MSA.

The Chattanooga MSA, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget, consists of three counties in Tennessee (Hamilton, Marion, and Sequatchie) and three in Georgia (Catoosa, Dade, and Walker) as shown in Figure 3-2. These six counties occupy 2,138 square miles (1,368,320 acres) in southeastern Tennessee and northwestern Georgia. The Census Bureau estimate of the Chattanooga MSA’s population for 2007 is 500,273 people.

Figure 3-2 CHATTANOOGA METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA

Source: ESRI

The “Greater Chattanooga Area” consists of 39 counties that surround the Airport in the states of Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina and Alabama. These counties are all within 100 miles of the Airport and it could conceivably draw passengers from each of these counties. Table 3-9 shows historical and projected information for the Chattanooga MSA, the Greater Chattanooga Area, Tennessee, Georgia, and the United States.

Aviation Forecasts 3-13 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-9 HISTORICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Population Growth Rates

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%

1969-2007

2007-2027

PCPI Growth Rates

0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0%

1969-2007

2007-2027

Employment Growth Rates

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0%

1969-2007

2007-2027

USA Tennessee Georgia Greater Chattanooga Area Chattanooga MSA

Source: Woods and Poole

Aviation Forecasts 3-14 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

The specific data used to generate Table 3-9 can be found in Appendix C of this report. The demographic information depicted in Table 3-9 is summarized as follows:

 Population growth in the Chattanooga MSA was 0.8 percent annually in the period of 1969- 2007. This rate was slower than the states of Tennessee and Georgia, as well as the United States in that period. For the next 20 years, the MSA population is expected to grow at an approximate 0.6 percent annual rate, which is behind the estimated 0.9 percent rate of growth for the United States. However, the Greater Chattanooga Area is expected to grow at a rate similar to national trends at slightly less than1.0 percent.

 Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) growth in the MSA outpaced that of the United States and Georgia in the 1969 to 2007 period. The Chattanooga MSA is expected to exceed slightly all of the other locations in PCPI growth over the next 20 years. This will occur at a rate of slightly more than five percent per year.

 Employment growth rates in the MSA fell behind all of the comparative areas in the 1969 to 2007 period principally with the State of Georgia. For the future, the MSA is expected to remain behind all of the comparative areas, with the exception of the Greater Chattanooga Area. Employment growth within the MSA is not expected to rise above 1.4 percent per annum.

This demographic information was developed prior to the announcement of the new Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, which will be discussed in the next section. This announcement is likely to affect the demographic projections for the Chattanooga MSA in a positive manner.

3.3.5 Major Employers

As in most other regions, service employment dominates the employment statistics with 32.7 percent of the employment. However, the region has very diverse employment including a manufacturing segment with approximately 15 percent of the employment as shown in Table 3-10.

Table 3-10 SHARE OF EMPLOYMENT BY BUSINESS TYPE Business Type Employment Share Services 69,331 32.7% Retail Trade 37,932 17.9% Manufacturing 32,229 15.2% Transportation 20,414 9.6% Public Administration 15,226 7.2% Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 13,270 6.2% Construction 11,680 5.5% Wholesale Trade 10,408 4.9% Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing 1535 0.7% Mining 170 0.1% Non-classified 129 0.1% Total 212,324 100.0% Source: Greater Chattanooga Area Chamber of Commerce, 2007

McKee Foods, a snack producer, leads the list of the eight largest manufacturing firms in the MSA. Other large MSA manufacturing employment is in fiber production. The largest manufacturing firms located in the MSA are presented in Table 3-11.

Aviation Forecasts 3-15 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-11 LARGEST MANUFACTURING EMPLOYERS IN THE MSA Rank Firm Main Product 1 McKee Foods Snack Foods 2 Synthetic Industries High Tech Fabrics 3 Roper Corporation Home Appliances 4 Pilgrims Pride Poultry Processing 5 Astec Industries Heavy Equipment 6 Shaw Industries Carpet and Fibers 7 Invista Incorporated Carpet and Fibers 8 Olan Mills Photography Source: Chattanooga Area Chamber of Commerce, 2007

There are a number of high technology fiber and carpet firms in the MSA listing. This is because the MSA is located adjacent to Dalton, Georgia, which is the carpet production capital of the United States with over 150 carpet and floor covering plants. The stability of these manufacturing sectors bodes well for the economic growth of the area.

As in any community, the major employers in the Air Service Area include a large number of schools, hospitals, and retail establishments. Other major employers in the MSA include Covenant Transportation (a trucking firm), the Tennessee Valley Authority (an electric power provider), and UnumProvident Corporation (a large insurance firm). The largest non-manufacturer employers in the MSA are listed in Table 3-12.

Table 3-12 LARGEST NON-MANUFACTURING EMPLOYERS IN THE MSA Rank Business Name 1 Hamilton County Education 2 Covenant Transportation 3 Erlanger Medical Center 4 Blue Cross/Blue Shield 5 Memorial Hospital 6 Tennessee Valley Authority 7 UnumProvident Corporation 8 City of Chattanooga 9 CIGNA Healthcare 10 Bi-Lo Corporation Source: Chattanooga Area Chamber of Commerce, 2007

On July 15, 2008, the Volkswagen Group of America announced that 20 years after closing the last Volkswagen plant in the United States that it will build a U.S. automotive production facility in Chattanooga and invest $1 billion in the economy. The plant will be built in the Enterprise South Industrial Park located approximately three miles from the Airport. Enough land has been earmarked for the facility that many of the supplier companies that an automotive plant requires will also be able to locate adjacent to the plant. Production of a new Volkswagen sedan is expected to begin in 2011 and will require 2,000 direct jobs. Estimates indicate that as many as 12,000 additional direct jobs will also come to Chattanooga because of the suppliers.

Aviation Forecasts 3-16 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.3.6 Airline Hubs in Atlanta and Nashville

The disadvantage of air service from a spoke city is the necessity to make a connection. The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is located within short driving distance of two hub airports: Southwest’s “focus city” in Nashville, and the Delta and AirTran hubs in Atlanta. These facilities have been identified as sources of passenger diversion for the Airport. Passenger preference for non-stop service combined with perceived higher airfares to fly from Chattanooga influence many passengers to drive to a hub airport, despite the added expense of higher automobile parking rates associated with these facilities over the convenience of the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport.

Historically the Airport’s passenger studies indicate that at least half of the passengers in the surrounding area drive to another airport. This loss of passengers is believed to be caused by:

 Good highways to nearby cities

 The perceived limited air service and “high” fares at the Airport

 The extensive non-stop service available at other airports – particularly the Delta and AirTran hubs at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta

 The low fare air service available at other airports – particularly the Southwest “focus city” at Nashville

 Historical ties to business, shopping, and related activities at the other regional cities that makes the drive less onerous

With the entrance of the low cost carriers into the Chattanooga market, lower airfares, and increasing congestion in Atlanta, these trends have been reversing.

3.3.7 Airfares

Airfare levels have an important effect on the demand for airline service nationally and at the Airport. Airfares are influenced by airline operating costs such as aircraft maintenance, industry competition, and fuel. Overall, aviation fuel has dramatically increased in price since 1980. A slight increase in fuel prices was recorded in the early 1990s because of the Persian Gulf War; however, fuel prices have continued to rise sharply over the past three years, particularly in the last five months. The FAA’s long-range fuel cost forecast acknowledges the short-range increases and calls for a 7.6 percent annual average growth increase in jet fuel prices through 2010. Other costs influencing airfares, such as labor costs, are forecast to increase nominally during the forecast period. Significant competition from low-cost carriers will limit the industry’s ability to pass on higher operating costs to passengers via higher airfares. Therefore, many airlines have resorted to cutting service.

Southwest has long been known to hedge on their fuel costs with the results that the increases in fuel prices have affected them little. Many of their fuel options have run out at this point and they are being squeezed by the rising fuel cost but not yet to the same extent as some of the legacy and start-up carriers. Southwest is also beginning to feel the effects of maturity in that their employees have now been with the airline for long enough periods that they have accrued benefits and wages approaching those of employees of the legacy carriers.

Low-cost, point-to-point airlines have survived with small passenger service growth since September 11, 2001. These operators have increased enplanements by offering affordable direct flights to vacation and resort locations from non-airline hub airports like the Chattanooga

Aviation Forecasts 3-17 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Metropolitan Airport. Allegiant Air currently offers this type of service at the Airport to three Florida destinations.

3.3.8 Low Cost Airline Access to Atlanta

Allegiant Air chose to serve Chattanooga not because of the local market, but because of the Atlanta market. They developed their business plan around the concept of serving a market not from a large hub airport but from a smaller, less crowded, less expensive nearby airport. Southwest successfully started this concept a few decades ago and Allegiant Air as well as others are using similar strategies. They are relying on the idea that passengers seeking to travel to the northern suburbs of Atlanta where a significant number of businesses have located will want to travel through a lower cost, less congested airport to get to their destination. From Chattanooga, they will enjoy a straight, relatively congestion free drive of an hour or less to these northern Atlanta suburbs.

3.3.9 Airline Competition

Competitive factors have a significant influence on airfares. On routes that are more competitive or in a city with a competitive environment such as one to two major air carriers and a low-cost carrier, airfares are significantly lower. Changes in competitive forces such as airline bankruptcies, mergers, and acquisitions would significantly influence, positively or negatively, airline traffic at the Airport. The addition of low-cost carriers to Chattanooga could influence the reduction of airfares of airlines already serving the Airport concerned over losing market share. This addition could also influence other low-cost carriers to consider approaching the Atlanta market through Chattanooga.

3.4 ENPLANED PASSENGER FORECAST

The forecast of enplaned passengers is the foundation upon which other commercial service activity forecasts are developed. The enplaned passenger forecasts are also the basis for determination of the future facilities needed to accommodate projected passenger demands. Forecasts or forecast methodologies employed in the preparation of passenger enplanement projections for the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport include:

 Market share analyses, which compare the performance of the local market to the national market  Trend analyses, specifically average annual growth based on specific periods of Chattanooga enplanement activity as well as the FAA National Growth trend  Regression analyses, which examine various socioeconomic indicators to determine if strong relationships exist between the indicators and annual enplaned passengers  The FAA’s December 2007 and 2008 Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) for the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport  The Indexed TAF, which is a modification to the FAA 2008 TAF, recognizes the actual passenger enplanement increases of FY 2007.

3.4.1 Market Share Analysis

A typical method to forecast enplaned passengers at an airport is based upon that airport’s market representing a share of the total United States enplanements. For example, if an airport historically had one percent of the total United States enplanements, it is assumed for purposes of

Aviation Forecasts 3-18 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

the methodology that it will continue to have a similar share because factors that influence the entire United States are expected to influence the airport similarly.

In 1976, the Airport’s market share of the United States passenger enplanements was 0.109 percent. This share decreased over the next 28 years to 0.034 percent in 2004. The market share has increased since then to approximately 0.38 in FY 2007. This is shown in Figure 3-3.

Figure 3-3 HISTORICAL MARKET SHARE

0.12%

0.10%

0.08%

0.06%

0.04% Share of US Market US of Share

0.02%

0.00% 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 Historical

Source: FAA

The FAA has forecast the total U.S. enplanements for the next 17 years. These are published in the FAA Aerospace Forecasts FY 2005-2025, Table 5. A copy of Table 5 can be found in Appendix C. The forecasts of U.S. enplanements were matched with the Airport market share during various periods. For this forecast methodology, five scenarios were developed based on the Airport’s historical market shares:

 The projection of the Airport’s returning to the lowest historical market share over the next twenty years would result in growth for the Airport as the U.S. enplanements are anticipated to increase to approximately 1,179,400,000 annual passengers in 2027. The FAA’s forecast only extends to 2025. For purposes of this report, it has been projected to 2027 at the same annual average growth rate. A 0.034 percent share of the U. S. enplanements would result in approximately 404,400 annual enplaned passengers at the Airport in 2027.

 If the Airport continued at the 0.039 percent market share, it held in 2007, the result would be an increase to approximately 457,900 annual enplaned passengers in 2027.

 By returning over the next 20 years to the 15-year average 0.043 percent of the market share that the Airport has held, approximately 509,300 annual enplanements could be realized by 2027.

Aviation Forecasts 3-19 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update o By returning over the next 20 years to the 30-year average of 0.056 percent of the market share, the Airport would realize approximately 671,000 annual enplanements by the year 2027.

o The maximum share that the Airport has achieved is 0.109 percent of market share. By returning to that level over the next 20 years, the Airport could realize approximately 1.28 million annual enplaned passengers by the year 2027.

These five scenarios for market share projections are shown in Table 3-13. The Remain at the Current Market Share was selected from this methodology to move forward for consideration. It indicates modest growth, yet recognizes that the growth recently experienced by the Airport is unlikely to continue unabated.

Aviation Forecasts 3-20 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-13 MARKET SHARE ANALYSIS

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000 Enplanements

200,000

100,000

0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Historical Return to Min Share Remain at Current Share Return to 15-year Average Return to 30-year Average Return to Maximum Share

Chattanooga Market Share Scenarios Return Remain at Return to Return to U.S. to Current 15-Year 30-Year Return to U.S. Enplanements Minimum Market Average Average Maximum Year Enplanements Share (000s) Share Share 1992-2007 1977-2007 Share 1976 256,320 0.1083% 236,641,251 1981 227,759 0.0780% 291,823,728 1986 272,468 0.0632% 431,448,116 1991 274,480 0.0561% 489,152,394 1996 239,318 0.0390% 613,630,409 2001 278,097 0.0401% 693,186,394

2007 296,083 0.0388% 762,590,503 2012 297,500 306,500 315,100 342,100 444,300 2017 331,900 352,500 372,200 434,500 669,300 2022 366,600 401,800 435,700 542,100 943,800 2027 404,400 457,900 509,300 671,000 1,281,300 Average Annual Growth 2007-2012 0.1% 0.7% 1.3% 2.9% 8.5% 2012-2017 2.2% 2.8% 3.4% 4.9% 8.5% 2017-2022 2.0% 2.7% 3.2% 4.5% 7.1% 2022-2027 2.0% 2.6% 3.2% 4.4% 6.3% Source: FAA

Aviation Forecasts 3-21 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.4.2 Trend Analysis

Trend analysis relies on projecting historic trends into the future. Figure 3-4 shows the historical percentage change in enplanements at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. These percentages can be down a negative 14.5 percent one year and up 13.4 percent the next year as happened between 1996 and 1997.

Figure 3-4 HISTORICAL ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN ENPLANEMENTS

25.0%

20.0% 15.0%

10.0%

5.0% 0.0% -5.0%

-10.0% -15.0% PercentageAverage Annual Growth -20.0% 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Historical Average Annual Growth

Source: FAA

Average annual growth rates level these wide fluctuations within selected periods thereby establishing a trend for that particular period. These average annual growth rates can be projected into the future. With this methodology, different annual growth rates found in specific historical periods of the Airport were projected forward based on those historical trends. Six scenarios were developed:

 The growth rate for the period from 1976 through 2007, which defines all of the last 31 years, is a 0.5 percent average annual growth rate. This growth rate was projected into the future with the result that passenger enplanements would grow to 325,000 enplanements by the year 2027.

 The lowest average annual growth rate analyzed was found between 1987 and 2007, a period of 20 years. The average annual growth rate during this period was negative 0.3 percent. This would result in 280,100 passenger enplanements in the year 2027.

 The 18-year average annual rate of growth for the years from 1982-2000 was 2.4 percent. This period was chosen, as it does not include the negative impacts of September 11, 2001. Projected forward this trend would result in 472,200 enplaned passengers in 2027.

 The 15-year period from 1992-2007 had an average annual growth rate of 0.02 percent. Projected forward this would result in 297,000 passenger enplanements in 2027.

Aviation Forecasts 3-22 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

 The average annual growth rate of 0.9 percent for the last ten years or 1997 through 2007 was also projected. While three of the four previous scenarios within this methodology also contained the period of September 2001, the negative growth of the year 2001 to 2002 has more weight in this period as it represents a larger percentage of the total. Regardless, the average annual growth rate for this period was low, yet still positive with a 0.9 percent average annual growth rate resulting in an increase to approximately 352,600 passenger enplanements in 2027.

 The average annual growth rate for the last five years, 2002 to 2007, had the highest average annual growth rate of 4.2 percent. This five-year period does not have September 2001 within it. Projected forward, this average annual growth would result in 669,500 annual passenger enplanements in 2027.

Each year, the FAA updates their overall national forecast of aviation activity. In the FAA Aerospace Forecasts FY 2005-2025, Table 5, the FAA indicated that the United States domestic revenue passenger enplanements were expected to rise 2.7 percent annually in the 2007 to 2010 period, 2.8 percent from 2010 to 2020, and 2.7 percent annually from 2020 to 2025. When translated to Chattanooga, the enplanements would increase annually at the national average annual percentage rate. Passenger annual enplanements would grow to 509,400 by 2027 as shown in Table 3-14. Again, the FAA forecasts end at 2025. The last two years were projected using the 2.7 percent average annual growth rate.

The 18-year average annual growth rate scenario was selected to move forward for consideration as it does not include September 11, 2001, is for a significant duration of time, and is within range of the forecast derived from the FAA national growth rate. Moreover, with the entrance of the LCC carriers into the market, the Airport is less likely to continue the low growth of the 10-, 15-, 20-, and 31-year trends.

Aviation Forecasts 3-23 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-14 TREND ANALYSIS

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000 Enplanements 200,000

100,000

0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Historical 31-Year AAG 20-Year AAG 18-Year AAG 15-Year AAG 10-Year AAG 5 Year AAG FAA National Growth Rate

CHA Average Annual Growth Rates FAA 2008 31-Year 20-Year 18-Year 15-Year 10-Year 5-year National (1976- (1986- (1982- (1992- (1997- (2002- Growth Percentage 2007) 2007) 2000) 2007) 2007) 2007) Rate Year Enpl. Change (0.5%) (-0.3%) (2.4%) (0.02%) (0.9%) (4.2%) (2.8 %) 1976 256,320 1981 227,759 -11.1%

1986 272,468 19.6%

1991 274,480 0.7%

1996 239,318 -12.8%

2001 278,097 16.2%

2007 296,083 1.0%

2012 303,100 292,000 332,700 296,300 309,300 363,100 338,900

2017 310,200 288,000 373,900 296,600 323,100 445,200 389,100

2022 317,500 284,000 420,200 296,800 337,500 546,000 445,900

2027 325,000 280,100 472,200 297,000 352,600 669,500 509,400

Average Annual Growth Rate 2007-2012 0.5% -0.3% 2.4% 0.01% 0.9% 4.2% 2.7% 2012-2017 0.5% -0.3% 2.4% 0.02% 0.9% 4.2% 2.8% 2017-2022 0.5% -0.3% 2.4% 0.01% 0.9% 4.2% 2.8% 2022-2027 0.5% -0.3% 2.4% 0.01% 0.9% 4.2% 2.7% Source: Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Records

Aviation Forecasts 3-24 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.4.3 Regression Analysis

Several local socioeconomic indicators were reviewed and analyzed to determine if statistically significant relationships exist between historical enplanements at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport and the selected indicators. The indicators reviewed in this analysis included: population, employment, and per capita personal income (PCPI). These independent variables typically are good predictors of enplanement levels (the dependent variable), absent air service constraints. The actual data used for the analyses can be found in Appendix C.

The indicators and the enplanements were analyzed using a general statistical technique called regression analysis. Regression analysis is a statistical forecasting model that is used to predict and measure the relationships between a dependent variable, in this case enplanements, and one or more independent variables, the socioeconomic indicators in this case. The benefit of using regression analysis as a forecast methodology is that the tool interprets the significance of the results.

One determination of the statistical significance of the projections produced by a regression analysis is the coefficient of determination, or R2 value. The R2 value is the square of the correlation coefficient and measures the contribution of the independent variables in the prediction of the dependent variable. The R2 value will range between 0.00 and 1.00 with 1.00 indicating a perfect correlation between the independent and dependent variables. R2 values of less than 0.70 generally indicate there is little correlation between the independent and dependent variables. Where there is more than one independent variable in the analysis, the adjusted R2 value will be of more significance. Each independent variable adds some variance to the dependent variable. The adjusted R2 attempts to yield a truer R2. Again, values higher than 0.70 indicate a higher correlation between the independent and dependent variables.

Multiple regression analyses were done using various combinations of the independent variables of population, employment, and PCPI. “Dummy variables” were also used to offset effects in the airline industry that may have abnormally affected enplanements. One dummy variable used was one that proposed to offset the effects of September 11, 2001 to the airline industry. The second dummy variable proposed to offset the effects of the recent downturn in the airline industry. Neither of these dummy variables had a statistically significant affect on the dependent variable, enplanements, in the analyses run.

Different periods were tested, ranging from three to 31 years. However, few analyses done for a period exceeding approximately 13 years were found to be statistically significant. Three scenarios were found to have some statistical significance. Each of the analyses paired the independent variable employment to the dependent variable enplanements. As can be seen from Table 3-15, as each of the scenarios has only one variable, the R2 factor is shown.

Aviation Forecasts 3-25 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-15 REGRESSION ANALYSIS

500,000 450,000

400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 Enplanements 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Historical Employment 1981-2000 Employment 1982-2001 Employment1982-2000 Employment 1982-2000 with VW

Employment Historical Employment Employment Employment 1982-2000 Year Enplanements 1981-2000 1982-2001 1982-2000 with VW 1976 256,320 1981 227,759 1986 272,468 1991 274,480 1996 239,318 2001 278,097 2007 296,083 2012 334,800 324,400 331,500 337,400 2017 349,900 337,000 345,600 351,500 2022 365,000 349,600 359,600 365,500 2027 380,100 362,100 373,600 379,500 R2 n/a 0.36 0.28 0.31 0.31 Average Annual Growth 2007-2012 2.5% 1.8% 2.3% 2.6% 2012-2017 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 2017-2022 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 2022-2027 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8%

Aviation Forecasts 3-26 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Each of the R2 values shown in Table 3-15 is significantly below 0.70. There are other indicators in the results of a regression analysis, which show that these scenarios may have statistical significance. Table 3-16 shows the summary output of the regression analysis done for the independent variable employment for the period of 1981 to 2000.

Table 3-16 SUMMARY OUTPUT OF A REGRESSION ANALYSIS SUMMARY OUTPUT 1982-2000 Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.556831233 R Square 0.310061022 Adjusted R Square 0.269476376 Standard Error 28696.25746 Observations 19

ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression 1 6291235387 6.29E+09 7.63986025 0.013271662 Residual 17 1.3999E+10 8.23E+08 Total 18 2.029E+10

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Intercept 119364.6831 56570.3818 2.110021 0.04998011 11.61149598 238717.8 Employment 0.491799883 0.17792858 2.76403 0.01327166 0.116403396 0.867196

While the R2 and adjusted R2 are important, they only indicate whether the dependent variable is predictable, not whether or not the analysis did a good job at predicting the dependent variable (enplanements) with that particular data. The “Significance F”, highlighted in yellow, gives that information and more. It tests the overall significance of the regression. It also tests whether or not the independent variable or group of independent variables can reliably predict the dependent variable. The level looked for is 0.05 or less. If the Significance F is greater than 0.05, it usually indicates that the independent variable or the group of independent variables is not worthwhile.

The coefficients, highlighted in blue, indicate the value of each independent variable measured against the dependent variable. If the independent variable (employment) were increased by one unit, the dependent variable (enplanements) would be raised 0.492 units. If the independent variable (employment) were zero, the dependent variable (enplanements) would be would be equal to 119,365 enplanements.

The “P-value”, highlighted in green, indicates whether the coefficient is significantly different from zero. Values below 0.05 are considered good. In the example above, the P-value is below 0.05.

The two scenarios that have an R2 value of 0.31 are essentially the same scenario. The same independent variable of employment was used for the same period, 1982-2000. The difference between the two is that between the years of 2008 and 2011, 12,000 additional jobs were added to the equation to represent the 12,000 new, direct and indirect jobs that are anticipated to come to Chattanooga before 2011 when production begins in the new Volkswagen automotive plant. This

Aviation Forecasts 3-27 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update scenario shows that approximately 5,900 enplanements per year could result due to these new jobs alone.

The scenario for employment taken between the years 1982 and 2000 was selected to move forward for consideration. While the scenario for employment using the 12,000 additional jobs could also have been chosen, 10,000 of the 12,000 jobs are estimates of the number of supplier jobs that could be added and the estimates for these have varied widely. Until information that is more definitive is known, it would not be wise to use this scenario. This scenario does illustrate that if 12,000 jobs are added to the Chattanooga CSA, that approximately 5,900 additional annual enplanements can be expected. The summary output results for all of the scenarios shown in Table 3-15 can be found in Appendix C.

3.4.4 FAA Terminal Area Forecast

The Federal Aviation Administration publishes each year the Terminal Area Forecast (TAF), the official forecast of aviation activity at FAA facilities for:

 FAA towered airports  Federal contracted tower airports  Nonfederal towered airports  Non towered airports

They also include projections for other active airports in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). These forecasts project the activities of air carriers, commuters, general aviation, and the military as well as passenger enplanements and based aircraft. The FAA uses the forecasts to determine their budget and planning needs.

The TAF, based upon the FAA’s mathematical models, generally does not specifically consider local issues. The FAA Statistics and Forecast Branch (APO-110) generally relies on the FAA regional offices to apprise them of significant issues.

The latest TAF for the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport released in March of 2008 uses FY2006 as the base year - when 239,629 enplaned passengers used the Airport. The average annual growth rate used by the FAA in the 2007 TAF in the 2007 to 2025 forecast period is 1.5 percent. In the preliminary 2008 TAF, the average annual growth rate has been reduced to 1.3 percent. The FAA uses these very conservative rates of growth for many of the airports in the United States that are of a similar size to the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. Table 3-17 shows the FAA 2008 TAF.

In the FAA 2008 TAF, 2007 is the initial year of the forecast and 289,158 passengers are projected for Chattanooga. By 2025, the last year of the TAF projection, 363,061 passengers are estimated; a growth of 73,903 enplaned passengers over 18 years, or over 4,000 enplanements per year. For purposes of comparison to the cases that will follow in this report, the FAA 2008 TAF has been projected by two years to the year 2027 using the same annual growth rate of 1.3 percent for a total of 372,792 enplaned passengers. This methodology was advanced for further consideration.

Aviation Forecasts 3-28 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-17 FAA 2008 TERMINAL AREA FORECAST

500,000

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000 Enplanements 150,000

100,000

50,000

0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Historical FAA 2008 TAF

FAA 2008 TAF Historical Enplanements Year Enplanements Forecast 1976 256,320 1981 227,759 1986 272,468 1991 274,480 1996 239,318 2001 278,097 2005 250,406 2007 296,083 289,158 2012 306,261 2017 326,817 2022 348,961 2025 363,061 Average Annual Growth 2007-2012 1.2% 2012-2017 1.3% 2017-2022 1.3% 2022-2025 1.3% Source: FAA

Aviation Forecasts 3-29 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.4.5 Indexed TAF

The Indexed TAF is based on the FAA TAF but takes into consideration the passenger enplanement growth that has already occurred at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. The FAA 2008 TAF uses the FY 2006 enplanements as the base. The actual passenger enplanements of 296,083 for FY 2007 indicate a higher volume of passengers used the Airport than the 248,741 enplanements the FAA is currently predicting.

In the Indexed TAF, the conservative 1.3 percent average annual rate of growth used by the FAA in the 2008 TAF is used; however, the higher actual FY 2007 passenger level is used as the base. The FY 2007 passenger level is obtained from Airport records, so the total should be very similar to the results the FAA will obtain when they update the TAF. The FAA’s updated TAF is due in March of 2009, and will be based on FY 2007 numbers.

With the Indexed TAF, the enplaned passengers would grow from the 296,083 enplaned passengers the Airport experienced in FY 2007 to 384,400 in 2027 at the TAF average annual growth rate of 1.3 percent. This would result in approximately 30 percent more passengers in 2027 than 2007 or approximately 88,300 more passengers as shown in Table 3-18.

Both the FAA 2008 TAF and the Indexed TAF would result in a “break-out” from the Airport’s traditional ceiling of approximately 300,000 annual enplaned passengers. The key result of the Indexed TAF is that the Airport would be preparing for close to 385,000 enplaned passengers by the end of the 20-year period. This methodology was advanced for further consideration.

Aviation Forecasts 3-30 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-18 INDEXED TAF

500,000

450,000

400,000 350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000 Enplanements 150,000 100,000

50,000

0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Historical FAA TAF Indexed TAF

Historical Indexed TAF Year Enplanements Enplanements 1976 256,320 1981 227,759 1986 272,468 1991 274,480 1996 239,318 2001 278,097 2005 250,406 2006 239,629 2007 1 296,083

2012 315,800

2017 337,000

2022 359,800

2027 384,400

Average Annual Growth 2007-2012 1.6% 2012-2017 1.3% 2017-2022 1.3% 2022-2027 1.3% Source: FAA 1 Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport records of actual annual passenger enplanements for FY2007

Aviation Forecasts 3-31 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.4.6 Presentation of the Enplaned Passenger Forecast

The process of developing a preferred forecast is interpretative and is based on knowledge of aviation trends and understanding of the factors that affect those trends. Therefore, the accuracy of the forecasts depends greatly upon how well future trends are predicted. It also depends on how these trends impact traffic at the Airport. This chapter presented five passenger forecast methodologies. With several of the methodologies, two or more scenarios were also presented. Together these provide a wide range of future activity for analytical purposes. Each of the methodologies that had one or more scenarios have been further analyzed to reduce the number of scenarios within each methodology to one. The results are as follows:

 Market Share Analysis – the Remain at the Current Market Share was selected as it represents modest growth while recognizing that the growth the Airport has achieved in the last several years is unlikely to continue at the same rate.

 Trend Analysis – the scenario selected is the 18-year Average Annual Growth scenario. It represents a high-case scenario representative of the growth the Airport has experienced in the last several years and is close to but below the FAA Aerospace Forecasts FY 2005-2025, national growth rate.

 Regression Analysis – the scenario Employment for the period 1982-2000 was selected, as it was the scenario with the strongest level of significance and therefore the most likely predictor of future enplanements of this group of enplanements.

The FAA 2008 TAF and the Indexed TAF were both brought forward for further consideration. The forecasts brought forward are shown in Table 3-19.

Aviation Forecasts 3-32 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-19 SUMMARY OF ENPLANED PASSENGER FORECASTS

500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 Enplanements 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 Historical 18-year AAG Regression Employment FAA 2008 TAF Indexed TAF Remain at Current Market Share

Remain at 18-Year Current (1982- Regression Historical Market 2000) Analysis FAA 2008 Indexed Year Enplanements Share (2.4%) (Employment) TAF TAF 1976 256,320 1981 227,759 1986 272,468 1991 274,480 1996 239,318 2001 278,097 2007 296,083 289,158 2012 306,500 332,700 334,813 306,261 315,800 2017 352,500 373,900 349,899 326,817 337,000 2022 401,800 420,200 364,985 348,961 359,800 2027 457,900 472,200 380,069 363,061 384,400 Average Annual Growth 2007-2012 0.7% 2.4% 2.5% 0.7% 1.3% 2012-2017 2.8% 2.4% 0.9% 1.3% 1.3% 2017-2022 2.7% 2.4% 0.8% 1.3% 1.3% 2022-2027 2.6% 2.4% 0.8% 0.8% 1.3% Source: FAA Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport

Aviation Forecasts 3-33 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.4.7 The Preferred Forecast

As can be seen from Table 3-19, the forecasts brought forward tend to form two groups in the later planning years. These are defined as follows:

 “Doldrums” – Where Airport enplanement levels follow long-term, low-growth trends with few changes in air service. Three of the forecasts fall within this scenario, with an increase to between approximately 363,061 and 384,400 annual passenger enplanements by the end of the planning period. These forecasts are the Regression Analysis Employment 1982-2000, the FAA 2008 TAF, and the Indexed TAF. These three forecasts reflect the historical enplanements of the Airport and project them forward. Only the Indexed TAF recognizes the LCC influence; and the only LCC influence reflected in the Indexed TAF is that of the passenger enplanements of Allegiant through September of 2007.

 “Current Trends” – This group of forecasts reflects the modest continuation of the positive air service and passenger growth trends of the past five years. Two forecast methodologies support this scenario with increases to between approximately 457,900 and 472,200 annual passenger enplanements by the end of the planning period. These two forecasts include the Remain at Current Market Share and the Return to 18-year Average Annual Growth forecasts. Only the Remain at Current Market Share recognizes the passenger increases that have occurred in the two years since the FY 2006 data used for the FAA 2008 TAF. The 18-year Average Annual Growth reflects the growth the Airport was experiencing for an 18-year period prior to September 11, 2001.

Of the forecasts brought forward, the Remain at Current Market Share forecast was selected as the Preferred Forecast. It is shown with the FAA 2008 TAF and the Indexed TAF in Table 3-20.

Aviation Forecasts 3-34 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-20 PREFERRED ENPLANEMENT FORECAST

500,000

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000 Enplanements 150,000

100,000

50,000

0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2007 2012 2017 2022

Historical FAA 2008 TAF Indexed TAF Remain at Current Market Share

Remain at Percent Current Difference FAA 2008 Indexed Market From FAA Year Enplanements TAF TAF Share 2008 TAF 1976 256,320 1981 227,759 1986 272,468 1991 274,480 1996 239,318 2001 278,097 2007 296,083 289,158 2012 306,261 315,800 306,500 0.1% 2017 326,817 337,000 352,500 7.9% 2022 348,961 359,800 401,800 15.1% 2027 1 372,792 384,400 457,900 22.8% Average Annual Growth 2007-2012 0.7% 1.3% 0.7% n/a 2012-2017 1.3% 1.3% 2.8% n/a 2017-2022 1.3% 1.3% 2.7% n/a 2022-2027 1.3% 1.3% 2.6% n/a 1 The FAA TAF does not include the year 2027. Projections were made to the TAF at the same Annual Average Growth rate for purposes of comparison to the other forecasts.

Aviation Forecasts 3-35 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

There were many reasons for the selection of the Remain at Current Market Share as the Preferred Forecast. A few of these include:

 The FAA 2008 TAF was based on FY 2006 enplanement data.

 The Indexed TAF takes into consideration the enplanement data between the end of FY 2006 and the end of FY 2007 on September 30, 2007.

 Since September of 2007, Allegiant Air added two flights per week to Ft. Lauderdale, FL and an additional flight to Orlando, FL using an MD-80 aircraft. Enjoying load factors between 96.7 and 80.1 percent for an average load factor of 86.3 percent, this adds approximately 20,250 annual enplanements.

 While Skybus has declared bankruptcy and left the Airport, their one flight per day was not counted into the FY 2007 annual enplanements as they only began service to the Airport in December of 2007.

 While Continental has announced that they will be leaving the Airport, American has agreed to add an additional flight per day to Dallas/Fort Worth, thereby reducing by more than half the impact of the Continental departure. The result is a loss of approximately 7,300 annual enplanements.

 In the last five years, Chattanooga has added seven new destinations to their schedule.

 The announcement of the building of a new Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga with an increase of up to 12,000 direct jobs could translate into as much as 5,900 annual enplanements.

3.5 AIR CARGO

The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport has long had air cargo service. In the last number of years, the amount of cargo traveling into and out of the Airport has risen dramatically. This triggered the Airport’s desire to investigate the viability of continuing the growth of air cargo at the Airport. Further, if air cargo were determined to be viable, what facilities would be required? This section explores the current state of the air cargo industry, Chattanooga’s current and possible future role, and the facilities that would be required to fulfill that role.

3.5.1 Industry Developments

Throughout the 1990’s, growth enjoyed by many airports was directly attributable to integrated2 carriers, such as Airborne Express (ABX), DHL, FedEx and UPS. These carriers expanded volumes by augmenting services and leveraging the dramatic growth of the U.S. economy over the decade – but also by capturing market share formerly carried by passenger carriers in many marginal markets. Passenger carriers unilaterally conceded much of this business by shedding frequencies and destinations, as well as by operating regional jets and other cargo capacity- strained aircraft on many routes.

Since 2000, many airports have experienced declining cargo volumes due to a variety of factors. While 9/11 had an undeniable impact on cargo volumes, the general decline had begun at least a year earlier sparked by a manufacturing slowdown starting in 2000.

2 So-called because of the integration of proprietary services – specifically multi-modal transportation including owned aircraft and trucking services, as well as freight forwarding and customs brokerage.

Aviation Forecasts 3-36 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

As of July 2007, two integrated carriers – ABX Air Inc. flying on behalf of DHL and Mountain Air Cargo flying on behalf of FedEx - accounted for more than 99 percent of all cargo processed at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. Passenger carriers accounted for less than one percent.

3.5.2 Carrier Consolidations and Acquisitions

Since 2000, the number of integrated carriers shrank as UPS acquired Emery and DHL acquired the former Airborne Express (now known as ABX Air, Inc.). Even as they grew through acquisitions, the major integrators have been responsible for decreasing air cargo volumes at airports. UPS ranks as the largest trucking company in North America, followed by FedEx, which acquired three of the formerly top twenty over-the-road trucking companies in North America. DHL’s interest in acquiring Airborne was largely driven by its interest in the former Airborne Ground operation – giving DHL an instant trucking network in the world’s largest cargo market.

3.5.3 Mail

The previously referenced erosion of market share by passenger carriers has been exacerbated as formerly lucrative US Postal Service contracts traditionally carried by passenger carriers have been tendered to FedEx, supplemented by DHL. Consequently, airports experienced tremendous losses in reported “mail”, although these “losses” are overstated because some of these volumes have merely been redistributed to all-cargo airlines and no longer reported as mail. Growth rates for reported mail volumes are likely to be suppressed due to continued pressure to divert low-yield mail by truck and higher-yield priority mail to contract carriers such as FedEx. Indicative of the trend, Southwest Airlines – formerly one of the USPS largest contractors – recently decided to terminate its contract to carry mail, citing unacceptably low margins. Substitution of electronic communications for traditional “letter” mail will undoubtedly continue, as well.

3.5.4 Global Trends

As detailed in Table 3-21, Boeing projects the Intra-North America market to grow at only 3.8 percent per annum through year 2025. Much of that growth will accrue to regional cargo hubs – rather than spoke markets, as well as international routes linking North America to Asia, not likely to benefit Chattanooga. Most North American markets will suffer as carriers like DHL, FedEx and UPS allocate new freighters to fast-growing Intra-Asia and Domestic China where they are still developing hub-and-spoke networks. Rather than adding freighter frequencies, these carriers are likely to address slow-growth U.S. markets by extending the use of express trucking, as well as by changes in aircraft gauge.

Aviation Forecasts 3-37 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-21 BOEING GLOBAL AIR CARGO FORECASTS Annual Average Growth Rate 2005- Region 2025 Domestic China 10.8% Intra-Asia 8.6% Asia-North America 7.1% World 6.1% Europe-North America 5.4% Intra-North America 3.8% Source: Boeing World Air Cargo Forecasts 2005/2006

Unfortunately, while Chattanooga may not have the opportunity to benefit from the stimulus of trade with Asia, it is not likely to be left unaffected by that growth. Because of its proximity to several large North American cargo hubs, Chattanooga can be served effectively for much of its cargo needs by truck. Both UPS and FedEx have indicated early in 2008, that their larger North American strategies to serve the domestic market are to maximize the use of trucks in the next few years. Not only could the Airport be affected in terms of aircraft utilization but also unspecified postponements are being introduced into corporate planning in terms of the need for new on- airport cargo facilities at many airports.

Meanwhile, DHL, now owned by German Postal Company Deutsche Post, has actually faced large institutional investors encouraging it to leave the U.S. market where it has experienced financial losses since acquiring Airborne. Although the corporate directors of DHL have recently indicated their willingness to persevere independently, it was also briefly rumored that DHL could sell its domestic express operation to FedEx.

3.5.5 Cargo Operations at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport

While there has been a general erosion of cargo tonnage at many U.S. airports, losses have been particularly severe at many “spoke” airports in cargo carriers’ hub systems. These airports have been marginalized both by passenger carriers offering less belly space and by all-cargo carriers maximizing their utilization of trucks on domestic segments in order to allocate freighters to high- growth markets such as intra-Asia and trans-Pacific routes. The competitive economics of trucks has been augmented by unprecedented fuel costs.

As depicted in Table 3-22, Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport had an extremely erratic ten-year period between 1997 and 2006 but ultimately still managed to grow its total cargo volume by 75 percent over that span. Entirely due to the introduction of all-cargo flights in 2005, Chattanooga experienced this dramatic growth in spite of having annual losses in more individual years than gains during the period. As will be explored later, Chattanooga’s “relative prosperity” differs greatly with the region’s dominant gateway, Atlanta, and Birmingham, which lost around 14 percent and almost 30 percent respectively during the same period. For reasons already cited, Chattanooga’s experience with diminishing increments of mail is typical of the vast majority of U.S. airports and likely to continue. Because mail volumes are almost entirely a function of capacity offered by passenger carriers and contracts with FedEx and others for premium products, there is little airport operators can do but passively monitor this particular element of the cargo business.

Aviation Forecasts 3-38 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-22 CHATTANOOGA METROPOLITAN AIRPORT'S TOTAL CARGO (SHORT TONS) 1997-2006 Total Enplaned Deplaned Total Annual Enplaned Deplaned Freight & Annual +/- Year Freight Freight Freight +/- % Mail Mail Mail % 1997 2,271.7 2,007.3 4,279.0 2.4 75.9 4,357.3 1998 2,428.1 1,922.7 4,350.8 1.7% 2.8 54.2 4,407.8 1.2% 1999 2,284.7 1,894.2 4,178.9 -4.0% - 25.3 4,204.2 -4.6% 2000 2,269.3 1,878.8 4,148.1 -0.7% - 48.4 4,196.5 -0.2% 2001 1,861.4 1,748.8 3,610.2 -13.0% 0.6 54.3 3,665.1 -12.7% 2002 1,815.7 1,661.8 3,477.4 -3.7% 2.2 19.0 3,498.7 -4.5% 2003 2,985.3 2,852.5 5,837.8 67.9% 5.1 36.4 5,879.3 68.0% 2004 1,524.7 1,410.1 2,934.8 -49.7% - 14.3 2,949.1 -49.8% 2005 2,174.7 2,368.3 4,543.0 54.8% 1.6 8.8 4,553.4 54.4% 2006 3,728.9 3,903.6 7,632.5 68.0% 1.7 5.6 7,639.7 67.8% Source: Airports Council International – North America 3

Detailed in Table 3-23 and Table 3-24, as of July 2007, Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport’s two integrated carriers – DHL whose local flying and ground handling is performed by contract carrier ABX Air Inc. and FedEx whose local operations are flown by Mountain Air Cargo - accounted for more than 99 percent of all cargo processed at the Airport. Passenger carriers accounted for less than one percent.

Table 3-23 TOTAL CARGO BY CARRIER (POUNDS) JULY 2007 Enplaned Deplaned Total FedEx 170,918 197,050 367,968 DHL/ABX 537,819 537,321 1,075,140 All Freighters 708,737 734,371 1,443,108 Total Cargo 710,745 740,073 1,450,818 Source: Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport

Table 3-24 TOTAL CARGO MARKET SHARE BY CARRIER JULY 2007 Enplaned Deplaned Total FedEx 24.0% 26.6% 25.4% DHL/ABX 75.7% 72.6% 74.1% All Freighters 99.7% 99.2% 99.5% Source: Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport

The DHL/ABX operation illustrates facets of Chattanooga’s current role and possible direction in the cargo industry. ABX operates a variety of DC-9 and (less often) DC-8 aircraft to DHL’s hub in Wilmington, OH – the furthest of the three integrators’ national hubs from Chattanooga. By itself, Chattanooga would not justify that size aircraft but DHL is able to gather the required loads by “triangulating” the service, flying from its Wilmington hub with a stop at Chattanooga before heading to Huntsville for the larger portion of the day. In the evening, the carrier stops again at Chattanooga en route from Huntsville to Wilmington. DHL staff estimated the aircraft ideally is only on the ramp at Chattanooga thirty minutes per stop. While it is undesirable for any carrier to operate more landings and departures than necessary from a fuel-utilization perspective,

3 Tonnage was originally reported in metric tons and therefore may differ slightly due to rounding.

Aviation Forecasts 3-39 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Chattanooga gets two daily landings for as long as the revenue contribution for those stops is greater than the marginal cost for DHL.

By comparison, FedEx has contracted its local flying and ground handling to Mountain Air Cargo, which typically operates a variety of ATR aircraft on the segment to FedEx hub Memphis. Given its market share (about one-third that of DHL) in Chattanooga, one would typically surmise that FedEx has properly “right-sized” its aircraft for the market. However, FedEx has considered upgrading Chattanooga to a “jet city”, typically entailing initial B-727-200 service, aircraft that FedEx intends to replace with B-757-200 aircraft between 2008 and 2016. Table 3-25 shows the principal U.S. domestic fleets operated by the Chattanooga integrated carriers.

Table 3-25 PRINCIPAL U.S. DOMESTIC FLEETS FOR CHATTANOOGA INTEGRATED CARRIERS Freighters Integrated Freight Carriers Small Medium Large FEDEX B727-100, 200 A300-600, A310-200/320 ABX Air (DHL contractor) DC9-31,32,33,41 B767-200 Astar (DHL contractor) B727-200 A300B4-200, DC-8-73

Presently, UPS serves the Chattanooga market entirely by truck. Its overnight needs are met by trucking shipments to UPS’ air operation in Knoxville, while deferred delivery (two to three day and beyond) may be trucked either to the air hub in Louisville or be trucked completely to its destination, depending on the schedule and distance. UPS registered its relative satisfaction with this approach but included the caveat that over the longer-term planning horizon, a plane could be justified if the carrier were to “bleed off” volumes presently fed through Atlanta.

All of these operations – DHL, FedEx and UPS – are demonstrative of the almost unique ability of integrated carriers to exploit greater capacity by shifting demand through adjustments to service areas. Unlike their more demand-driven counterparts in other sectors, integrated carriers have the scale (in terms of sheer volume of shipments under their control) as well as resources (most prominently trucks) to influence a market directly by adding capacity, then reworking its network to support it. Once they introduce the capacity (“lift”) into a market, the integrators can simply change their service parameters to ensure its operating effectiveness – perhaps by extending the service area south toward Atlanta and/or north toward Knoxville. Because the Chattanooga Master Plan’s aviation forecasts cover a longer planning range, the “high case” will account for this specific possibility.

On the subject of trucking operations, it bears noting that although surface transportation is essential to the air cargo industry and particularly to integrators, there is still substantial operating autonomy between management of each mode. For example, on January 15, 2008, while FedEx Freight announced their intention to nearly double their local presence on a tract of land near the Airport. Quoted in the Chattanooga Times Free Press (“FedEx Freight Plans Shallowford Road Facility”, 1/15/2008), Dennis Beal, FedEx Freight’s vice president of physical assets observed, “We see the Chattanooga market as a vibrant market.” Proving as much, in the previous six months FedEx Ground had begun construction of a $15 million facility off South Broad Street. All of this investment is encouraging and provides Chattanooga with superior logistics offerings. However, for the Airport, it is also likely emblematic of the near-term investment priorities of the integrators, in general.

Aviation Forecasts 3-40 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Besides the on-airport presence of contract carriers for FedEx and DHL, Chattanooga is also home to Chattanooga Air Freight, which provides consolidations and line-haul trucking services for local freight forwarders – primarily to Atlanta. Previously, it also provided this service for FedEx, which has since taken these operations internal.

The business model of freight forwarders, including former Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport tenant Southern Air Freight, which has moved its operation off-airport is to offer communities such as Chattanooga – which lack international airlift and wide-body capacity sufficient for containerized freight – the ability to exploit the offerings of larger international gateways such as Atlanta. Although they typically – other than the occasional chartered aircraft – do not bring in their own scheduled air service, they have a critical role in the air transportation industry.

3.5.6 Regional Air Cargo Operations

Of the regional airports in Table 3-26, none grew by a greater percentage than Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, which grew by about 75 percent between 1997 and 2006. The dominant regional gateway, Atlanta, experienced a loss of almost 14 percent and Birmingham dropped almost 30 percent. Both Nashville and Huntsville benefited from international volumes with the former gaining a Dell Computer plant responsible for new freighter service to Asia, while the latter has served as an alternative gateway for European freight forwarder Panalpina. Like many similar- sized airports, Knoxville took several years to recover from the slowdown of 2001 but still managed to register about a 20 percent increase for the period.

Table 3-26 REGIONAL AND PEER GROUP AIRPORTS CARGO TONNAGE (SHORT TONS) 1997-2006 Year Chattanooga Knoxville Nashville Huntsville Atlanta Birmingham 1997 4,357 38,310 58,413 40,780 950,921 48,572 1998 4,408 46,891 60,289 34,797 997,929 45,510 1999 4,204 49,101 62,372 54,754 971,435 43,148 2000 4,197 48,763 64,523 67,767 983,918 44,794 2001 3,664 42,686 51,792 65,633 809,376 38,975 2002 3,498 39,743 44,480 67,433 807,491 35,588 2003 5,878 38,325 65,144 61,778 882,473 37,601 2004 2,949 38,748 70,505 61,029 948,453 32,903 2005 4,554 41,458 71,801 58,456 844,687 33,579 2006 7,640 46,037 74,682 76,392 821,152 34,183 Source: Airports Council International – North America

By annual volume, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport operates in an altogether different sphere from any other airport in the region. By volume, Huntsville and Nashville are roughly comparable to one another and still considerably larger than Knoxville and Birmingham. By cargo volume, Chattanooga is considerably smaller than any other airport in the region and as has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent years, one consequence of such a small volume base and related dependence on so few carriers is that relatively minor changes in carrier operating patterns tend to be magnified in Chattanooga’s annual cargo statistics.

Of the regional airports referenced, Atlanta, Nashville and Knoxville have the most direct implications for Chattanooga. Therefore, these will be examined more closely. Atlanta and Nashville have both been cited by regional transportation operators as specifically garnering international and long-distance domestic shipments trucked from Chattanooga’s service area,

Aviation Forecasts 3-41 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

while Knoxville more closely overlaps in the service areas of integrated carriers. In fact, UPS considers Chattanooga to be part of the larger Knoxville service area.

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport

The starting point for Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport’s cargo performance is cargo market leader (around 38 percent market share) Delta Airlines, which – although not operating freighters – operates the largest wide-body fleet of any U.S. carrier. Moreover, Delta’s partnerships with many other airlines and the opportunity for international carriers to interline cargo to access Delta’s domestic route network provide powerful incentives for numerous other carriers to use Atlanta as a cargo gateway.

The sheer volume of air cargo activity at Atlanta, the incomparable belly capacity and the substantial local industrial demand sustain an enviable base of complementary service providers, including more than 100 motor carriers serving the airfreight market (and more than 300 common carriers operating in the metro), more than 100 licensed customs brokers and 200 domestic and international freight forwarders. In terms of trucking common carriers, as well as other allied trade and cargo services, Atlanta is likely superior to any Southeastern U.S. market other than Miami.

Nashville International Airport

The genesis of the Nashville Air Cargo Link – as Nashville’s air cargo complex is known – dates to 1999, when the Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority bought the original 30-year-old multi-tenant cargo terminal comprising 89,638 square feet of warehouse and 435,600 square feet of ramp. In August 2000, the Authority immediately commenced a $12 million enhancement/expansion project on its new investment. The multi-phase cargo improvement program was initiated with $6.6 million in rehabilitation and improvements to the existing cargo facility, cargo apron, taxiway, landside truck terminal and parking lots.

In 2001, Nashville invested another $5.5 million ($4 million of which was federal funding) for a cargo apron expansion to accommodate multiple wide-body freighters. In Phase II completed in 2003, Nashville added a new 24,000 square foot terminal with 762,300 square foot of ramp on the airport’s west side built to accommodate China Airlines. In June 2006, third party developer Aeroterm completed a dedicated facility for FedEx Express that relieves pressure on the Nashville airport’s multi-tenant capacity. The FedEx facility comprises 71,500 square feet of warehouse and sufficient apron for two to three wide-body aircraft. The facility presently operates as a 3,000 pieces per hour capacity facility but has capacity for 6,000 pieces per hour

In August 2001, China Airlines began service to Nashville from Taipei, Taiwan. The service was initiated entirely to serve Dell Computers but area forwarders have supplemented Dell’s demand with other regional consolidations. Dell’s initial primary logistics provider was Eagle Global Logistics but more recently, it has been handled by UPS Global Logistics, which although this division retained the China Airlines flight operations, UPS did not maintained its own domestic flight operation - downgrading Nashville to a trucking-intensive service to the Louisville hub.

McGhee Tyson Airport

Unlike the international offerings at Atlanta and secondarily at Nashville, Knoxville’s McGhee Tyson Airport has a more predatory relationship with the Chattanooga market in that unlike the more unattainable international operations, domestic shipments are being trucked from Chattanooga to Knoxville. The preceding is not an indictment against either Knoxville or carriers

Aviation Forecasts 3-42 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update such as UPS who do so, but rather merely symptomatic of the prevalent business model. As detailed in Table 3-26, Knoxville processes about six times the annual volume of Chattanooga. To the extent that far more of that origin and destination cargo is produced/consumed in the Knoxville market, in some circumstances, it may be optimal for the carrier to use trucked freight from the smaller market to effectively “top off” existing scheduled service at the larger market.

Apart from scale, Knoxville and Chattanooga bear some similarities. Both are essentially feeder markets served by truck in order to consolidate air cargo at larger international gateways. Like Chattanooga, Knoxville is dominated by integrated carriers with FedEx and UPS combining for approximately 90 percent of the total cargo market share. Knoxville’s cargo complex dates to 1991 when the airport’s 21-acre cargo area was completed to provide Airborne Express, FedEx, and UPS with dedicated cargo terminals, along with 430,000 square feet of aircraft parking apron and more than 200,000 square feet of vehicular parking.

3.5.7 Chattanooga Monthly Peaks

Typically, one of the trickiest aspects of airport cargo planning is reconciling the need to accommodate peak period requirements - for both cargo terminal and ramp demand – with the desire to limit investments in facilities only used a portion of the year. However, as revealed in Figure 3-5, Table 3-27, and Table 3-28. Chattanooga’s peaks have been relatively modest.

Figure 3-5 CHATTANOOGA 2007 MONTHLY FREIGHT (POUNDS)

1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000

Pounds of Freight 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 January March May July September November Month

Enplaned Freight Deplaned Freight

Aviation Forecasts 3-43 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-27 MONTHLY FREIGHT TOTALS (POUNDS) TRANSPORTED BY FREIGHTERS IN 2007

Total Total Enplaned Deplaned Month Freight Freight Total Freight January 668,193 726,998 1,395,191 February 643,468 696,598 1,340,066 March 775,423 794,643 1,570,066 April 623,682 672,843 1,296,525 May 720,561 789,877 1,510,438 June 747,158 780,903 1,528,061 July 708,737 734,371 1,443,108 August 810,775 881,068 1,691,843 September 727,446 740,944 1,468,390 October 781,403 764,476 1,545,879 November 766,223 750,880 1,517,103 December 683,133 718,063 1,401,196 2007 TOTAL 8,656,202 9,051,664 17,707,866

Table 3-28 2007 MONTHLY FREIGHTER LANDINGS % of Total FedEx/Mountain Annual Month Freighters Air ABX/DHL Freighters January 63 21 42 8.30% February 60 20 40 7.91% March 69 23 46 8.30% April 59 20 39 7.91% May 66 22 44 8.30% June 66 22 44 7.91% July 60 20 40 8.30% August 69 23 46 7.91% September 60 20 40 8.30% October 66 22 44 7.91% November 63 21 42 8.30% December 58 20 38 7.91%

3.5.8 Cargo Forecasts for Chattanooga

The slow cargo growth (3.8 percent) projected by Boeing for North American airports is likely to be even more marginal for many non-hub airports, such as Chattanooga, which will not directly participate in the growth in trans-Pacific cargo volumes likely to be trucked from gateways. In Table 3-29, growth rates for freight are held static at 3.8 percent, while the growth rate for mail has been forecast to rise at a steady one percent per annum. However, this could easily run at a deficit.

Aviation Forecasts 3-44 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-29 AIR CARGO FORECAST (SHORT TONS) - "BASE CASE" 2007-2027 Total Enplaned Deplaned Total Freight + Annual Year Freight Freight Freight Mail +/- % 2007 4,328.1 4,525.8 8,853.9 8,861.3 18.1% 2008 4,492.6 4,697.8 9,190.3 9,198.0 3.8% 2009 4,663.3 4,876.3 9,539.6 9,547.6 3.8% 2010 4,840.5 5,061.6 9,902.1 9,910.4 3.8% 2011 5,024.4 5,253.9 10,278.4 10,287.0 3.8% 2012 5,215.4 5,453.6 10,668.9 10,677.9 3.8% 2013 5,413.5 5,660.8 11,074.4 11,083.6 3.8% 2014 5,619.3 5,875.9 11,495.2 11,504.8 3.8% 2015 5,832.8 6,099.2 11,932.0 11,942.0 3.8% 2016 6,054.4 6,331.0 12,385.4 12,395.8 3.8% 2017 6,284.5 6,571.6 12,856.1 12,866.8 3.8% 2018 6,523.3 6,821.3 13,344.6 13,355.8 3.8% 2019 6,771.2 7,080.5 13,851.7 13,863.3 3.8% 2020 7,028.5 7,349.6 14,378.1 14,390.1 3.8% 2021 7,295.6 7,628.8 14,924.4 14,936.9 3.8% 2022 7,572.8 7,918.7 15,491.6 15,504.5 3.8% 2023 7,860.6 8,219.6 16,080.2 16,093.7 3.8% 2024 8,159.3 8,532.0 16,691.3 16,705.2 3.8% 2025 8,469.3 8,856.2 17,325.5 17,340.0 3.8% 2026 8,791.2 9,192.7 17,983.9 17,998.9 3.8% 2027 9,125.2 9,542.1 18,667.3 18,682.9 3.8%

While this Base Case may seem conservative, (as has already been detailed) a trend analysis simply based on the preceding ten years would be of dubious value given the highly erratic cargo volumes experienced at the Airport during the period.

The High Case detailed in Table 3-30 introduces extraordinary developments in Years 2012 and again in Year 2022. Specifically, in Year 2012, the forecast augments cargo volumes commensurate with the possibility of FedEx upgrading its equipment from ATR to (initially) Boeing 727 freighter aircraft. In Year 2022, the forecast introduces another extraordinary event concomitant either with the introduction of new service by UPS (suggested as a possibility as Atlanta becomes more congested) or yet another upgrade by FedEx as B-727-200 aircraft is replaced with the capacity of B-757 aircraft (again, as suggested by FedEx representatives). However, pavement strength requirements of the interim B-727-200 aircraft require either permission from the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority (pursuant to load bearing) or that the carrier compromise payload maximization. Alternatively, FedEx has already begun the process of replacing the aircraft with B-757-200 aircraft and might rotate this aircraft through Chattanooga earlier or might delay the initiation of jet service into Chattanooga until later in the transition – scheduled to be completed by 2016.

Aviation Forecasts 3-45 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-30 CARGO TONNAGE (SHORT TONS) FORECAST – “HIGH CASE” Total Enplaned Deplaned Total Freight Annual Year Freight Freight Freight + Mail +/- % 2007 4,328.1 4,525.8 8,853.9 8,861.3 18.1% 2008 4,492.6 4,697.8 9,190.3 9,198.0 3.8% 2009 4,663.3 4,876.3 9,539.6 9,547.6 3.8% 2010 4,840.5 5,061.6 9,902.1 9,910.4 3.8% 2011 5,024.4 5,253.9 10,278.4 10,287.0 3.8% 2012 7,612.0 7,959.7 15,571.7 15,584.7 51.5% 2013 7,901.3 8,262.2 16,163.4 16,177.0 3.8% 2014 8,201.5 8,576.1 16,777.7 16,791.7 3.8% 2015 8,513.2 8,902.0 17,415.2 17,429.8 3.8% 2016 8,836.7 9,240.3 18,077.0 18,092.1 3.8% 2017 9,172.5 9,591.4 18,763.9 18,779.6 3.8% 2018 9,521.0 9,955.9 19,476.9 19,493.2 3.8% 2019 9,882.8 10,334.2 20,217.1 20,234.0 3.8% 2020 10,258.4 10,726.9 20,985.3 21,002.9 3.8% 2021 10,648.2 11,134.6 21,782.8 21,801.0 3.8% 2022 13,448.7 14,063.0 27,511.6 27,534.6 26.3% 2023 13,959.7 14,597.4 28,557.1 28,580.9 3.8% 2024 14,490.2 15,152.1 29,642.2 29,667.0 3.8% 2025 15,040.8 15,727.8 30,768.6 30,794.4 3.8% 2026 15,612.4 16,325.5 31,937.8 31,964.5 3.8% 2027 16,205.6 16,945.9 33,151.5 33,179.2 3.8%

3.6 BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST

Based aircraft represent the total number of active civil aircraft permanently located at an airport during a specific period. Based aircraft categories include single-engine, multi-engine, jet, rotorcraft, and other/experimental. The national general aviation industry has experienced declines in nearly all measures of activity since the early 1980s including new aircraft shipments, active fixed base operators (FBOs), and hours flown. The number of aircraft based at individual airports also dropped at many facilities, including the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport.

According to the Airport’s FAA 5010 form, there were 114-based aircraft at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport in 2007. The Final Report, Tennessee Long-Range Transportation Plan, Aviation System Plan, published in January of 2005 projects the based aircraft at Chattanooga to grow to 181 based aircraft by the year 2030. The December 2006 FAA TAF forecast the based aircraft to grow to 143 by 2025. The FAA FY 2007-2025 Summary TAF Report indicates an approximate 0.87 percent average annual growth rate for based aircraft in the southern region of the United States between 2007 and 2025. The FAA December 2007 TAF indicates 90-based aircraft at the Airport. These 90-based aircraft are forecast to increase slowly to 108-based aircraft by 2025, as shown in Table 3-31. If the 90-based aircraft in 2007 were corrected to 114-based aircraft, and the same average annual growth rate was applied, it is likely that the Preferred Based Aircraft forecast would be within one percent in the five-year forecast and two percent in the 10- year forecast from the FAA TAF.

Aviation Forecasts 3-46 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-31 BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST

200

180

160

140

120

100

80 Based Aircraft Based 60

40

20

0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Historical FAA 2006 TAF FAA 2007 TAF TN Aviation System Plan FY 2007-2025 Summary TAF Report FAA U.S. Growth by Aircraft Type FAA U.S. Growth by Total Aircraft

Tennessee 2007-2025 FAA U.S. FAA U.S. FAA FAA Aviation Summary Growth By Growth By December December System TAF Aircraft Total Year Historical 2006 TAF 2007 TAF Plan Report Type Aircraft 1976 0 1981 178 1986 161 1991 124 1996 114 2001 121 2007 114 115 90 119 114 2012 123 95 132 119 133 122 2017 132 101 147 124 152 131 2022 140 106 160 129 172 140 2027 n/a n/a 173 n/a 190 151 Average Annual Growth 2007-2012 1.4% 1.1%2.2% 0.8% 3.1% 1.4% 2012-2017 1.4% 1.2%2.1% 0.8% 2.7% 1.4% 2017-2022 1.2% 1.0%1.7% 0.9% 2.5% 1.4% 2022-2027 n/a n/a 1.6% n/a 1.4% n/a Source: FAA Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport

Aviation Forecasts 3-47 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

The FAA Aerospace Forecasts 2008-2025, Table 27, found in Appendix C, projects the average annual rate of growth for each type of civilian aircraft typically based at an airport. By projecting the number of aircraft currently based at the Airport by type of aircraft using the FAA average annual rate of growth and then adding these totals together, the FAA U.S. Growth by Aircraft Type forecast results in a total of 190 aircraft based at the Airport in 2027. This is an increase of 76- based aircraft over 20 years.

The FAA Aerospace Forecasts 2008-2025, Table 27, also projects the average annual rate of growth for all general aviation aircraft as a group. The rate of approximately 1.4 percent per year has been applied to the based aircraft at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport to achieve the FAA U.S. Growth by Total Aircraft forecast resulting in 151-based aircraft at the Airport in 2027.

It can be seen from Table 3-31 that the FAA December 2006 TAF and the FAA U.S. Growth by Aircraft Type both begin with between 114 and 115-based aircraft but by the year 2022 there is a difference of 32 aircraft between the two. The FAA U.S. Growth by Total Aircraft is closely aligned to the FAA December 2006 TAF. The Tennessee Aviation System Plan is located between the FAA Growth by Aircraft Type and the FAA U.S. Growth by Total Aircraft, with a projected 173 based aircraft in 2027. Projections based on the FAA FY 2007-2025 Summary TAF Report fall below the FAA December 2006 TAF. The FAA December 2007 TAF begins with 90 aircraft in 2007 and rises to 95 aircraft by 2012 and then slowly rises to 108 based aircraft by 2025. The FAA U.S. Growth by Total was selected as the Preferred Forecast for based aircraft.

3.7 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST

The forecast of aircraft operations includes three categories: commercial service, general aviation, and military. The commercial service category includes both air carrier and commuter operations of both passenger and air cargo airlines. The military includes aircraft of the United States military, while the general aviation category represents all civil aviation aircraft takeoffs and landings not classified as commercial (air carrier or commuter) or military.

3.7.1 FAA TAF Operations Forecast

The FAA 2008 TAF contains the FAA’s record of historical aircraft operations by category, as well as their projections. The FAA 2008 TAF indicates that the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport had a peak number of annual operations of approximately 148,000 in 2001 and a low of approximately 88,000 annual operations over a 31-year period.

The FAA 2008 TAF Operations Forecast projects that total operations will increase to approximately 94,800 annual operations in 2027. Within the categories of commercial service, general aviation, and military, the FAA expects the largest growth to occur in general aviation, while the commercial operations and military are predicted to remain stable or decline. The FAA 2008 TAF is shown in Table 3-32.

Aviation Forecasts 3-48 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-32 FAA TAF OPERATIONS FORECAST

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

Operations 40,000

20,000

0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021

Historical Commercial Ops Forecast Commercial Ops Historical GA & Military Ops Forecast GA & Military Ops

Historical FAA 2008 TAF Historical FAA 2008 TAF Commercial Commercial Military & GA Military and GA Year Operations Operations Operations Operations Total Operations 1976 21,500 106,262 127,762 1981 14,133 86,742 100,875 1986 22,652 96,033 118,685 1991 25,315 83,056 108,371 1996 21,602 66,965 88,567 2001 34,912 112,435 147,347 2005 23,435 68,677 92,112 2006 22,250 59,417 81,667 2007 22,166 56,485 78,651 2012 23,047 62,567 85,614 2017 24,040 67,427 91,467 2022 25,082 71,677 96,759 2025 25,733 74,406 100,139 Average Annual Growth 2007-2012 0.8% 2.1% 1.7% 2012-2017 0.8% 1.5% 1.3% 2017-2022 0.9% 1.2% 1.1% 2022-2025 0.9% 1.3% 1.2% Source: FAA

Aviation Forecasts 3-49 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.7.2 Master Plan Forecast of Operations

In the last five years, the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport has recorded approximately 443,500 operations, or an average of approximately 88,700 annual operations. The total number of operations per year has been declining. The forecast of total annual operations is a function of the commercial, general aviation, and military operations. The commercial operations are dependent upon the forecast of enplaned passengers selected. This will be covered in the next section of the report.

A few considerations will apply regardless of the passenger enplanement forecast selected. They are as follows:

 The size of the commuter passenger aircraft will continue to increase. Specifically the 19-, 34-, and 50-seat aircraft will become 50-, 75-, and 90-seat aircraft.

 A larger number of mainline passenger jet aircraft are expected in the 137 to 150--passenger seat range replacing some of the commuter aircraft and potentially greatly increasing passenger traffic without increasing the number of operations.

 General aviation traffic at the Airport is expected to see the disappearance of certain of the two and four piston-engined aircraft that will move to less-busy airports.

 The business aircraft market is expected to grow significantly, as corporate jets replace turbo- props and the new lower cost corporate jets multiply.

 The on-Airport military presence is expected to leave the Airport within the forecast period; however, as the on-Airport military unit is not an aviation unit, both the itinerant and local military operations are expected to continue, but decline somewhat with fewer and fewer operations each year.

The result is a relatively stable expectation of aircraft operations.

Aviation Forecasts 3-50 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.7.3 Commercial Service Operations Forecast

The commercial service operations forecast is dependent on the number of passengers carried on air carrier and commuter aircraft, or the air carrier / commuter “split”. Note that the FAA defines air carrier and commuter operations based on the size of the aircraft (above and equal to 60 seats and less than 60 seats and a similar weight-based measure for cargo aircraft).

The number of air carrier and commuter operations at the Airport “inverted” by 1984 when the number of commuter operations exceeded the number of air carrier operations, as shown in Table 3-33. This was a common occurrence at many airports as the airlines shifted from air carrier aircraft to increasing numbers of commuter aircraft. At first, this shift was to turbo-prop commuter aircraft, a trend replaced by a shift to regional jets.

Table 3-33 HISTORICAL COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS

25,000

20,000

15,000

Operations 10,000

5,000

0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Historical Air Carrier Ops Historical Commuter Ops

Source: FAA Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport records

The trend toward more regional jets and fewer air carrier aircraft is likely to continue in the industry. At the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, with the entrance of the LCC air service into the Chattanooga market, larger aircraft are also entering the market, and the air carrier to commuter split is changing. The FAA 2008 TAF forecast is based on an air carrier percentage of the commercial operations beginning at 16.4 percent and reducing to 14 percent over the planning period.

The FAA 2008 TAF forecasts the number of commercial operations to remain constant throughout the planning period. The master plan forecast as shown in Table 3-34 predicts that the number of passenger air carrier operations will decline somewhat over the planning period as aircraft become larger. However, the cargo air carrier operations are expected to increase by approximately 3.8 percent per year. The commuter operations are expected to continue to raise over the planning period for both passenger and cargo aircraft.

Aviation Forecasts 3-51 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-34 COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS FORECAST

25,000

20,000

15,000

Operations 10,000

5,000

0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Historical Air Carrier Ops Forecast Air Carrier Ops Historical Commuter Ops

Forecast Commuter Ops FAA TAF Air Carrier Ops FAA TAF Commuter Ops

Air Carrier Commuter Total FAA Air FAA Air FAA Total 2008 TAF Passenger Cargo 2008 Passenger Cargo 2008 Commercial Commercial Year Historical Forecast Forecast TAF Historical Forecast Forecast TAF Service Service 1976 19,233 2,267 21,500 21,500 1981 10,308 3,825 14,133 14,133 1986 10,388 12,264 22,652 22,652 1991 8,666 16,649 25,315 25,315 1996 7,616 13,986 21,602 21,602 2001 12,364 22,548 34,912 34,912 2007 3,658 789 4,066 18,428 1518 18,479 24,394 22,545 2012 2,430 950 3,675 18,500 880 19,372 22,710 26,385 2017 2,260 1,150 3,675 19,300 1,060 20,365 23,780 27,455 2022 2,150 1,380 3,675 20,100 1,270 21,407 25,190 28,865 2027 2,080 1,660 3,675 21,100 1,540 22,413 26,340 30,015 Average Annual Growth 2007-2012 -7.9% 3.8% - 0.1% -10.3% 0.9% -1.4% 3.2% 2012-2017 -1.4% 3.9% 0.0% 0.9% 3.8% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 2017-2022 -1.0% 3.7% 0.0% 0.8% 3.7% 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 2022-2027 -0.7% 3.8% 0.0% 1.0% 3.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8%

Aviation Forecasts 3-52 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.7.4 Military and General Aviation Operations

Except for several years of growth in the early 1980s and again between 1997 and 2001, general aviation operations at the Airport have generally declined since 1976. As shown in Table 3-35, total Airport general aviation operations have decreased from 104,048 in 1976 to 44,164 in 2007, similar to nationwide trends.

Future general aviation operations at the Airport are projected to slowly turn around and then begin to grow at a moderate rate. Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport general aviation itinerant operations are projected to grow by a 1.4 percent average annual growth rate from the 2007 level to approximately 46,600 in 2027. The local operations are expected to grow at a slower rate to approximately 10,300 operations by 2027. Local operations are those performed by aircraft which:

 Operate in the local traffic pattern or within sight of the airport

 Are known to be departing for, or arriving from, flight in local practice areas located within a 20- minute radius of the airport

 Execute simulated instrument approaches or low passes over the airport

Itinerant operations are all aircraft operations other than local operations.

Annual activity by military aircraft is a function of Department of Defense policy, military appropriations, and the mission assigned to a particular flying unit. As such, projections of future operations by military aircraft are not reliably predictable through use of socioeconomic indicators or trend analyses.

Military activity at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport has historically ranged between approximately 1,350 and 17,800 annual operations. The average number of operations over the last 10 years has been above 12,600 annual operations. The military activity as projected by the FAA 2008 TAF projects that the itinerant military operations will remain constant at 8,274 annual operations after 2008 and that the local military operations will remain constant at 4,937 after 2008. The on-Airport military presence is expected to leave the Airport within the short-term planning period. The 241st Engineering Installation Squadron of the Tennessee National Guard is a non- aviation wing, so the local military activity may decline over the period, but it will probably not cease. The itinerant military presence is expected to continue with modest growth of itinerant operations and a reduction in local operations as shown in Table 3-35.

Aviation Forecasts 3-53 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-35 FORECAST OF GENERAL AVIATION AND MILITARY OPERATIONS

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000 Operations

30,000

20,000

10,000

0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Forecast Itinerant GA FAA TAF Itinerant GA Forecast Itinerant Military FAA TAF Itinerant Military Historical Itinerant GA Historical Itinerant Military

Itinerant Operations Local Operations FAA TAF Total GA & Total GA & Year General Aviation Military General Aviation Military Military Ops Military Ops 1976 64,277 1,832 39,771 382 106,262 1981 61,179 1,456 23,969 138 86,742 1986 63,307 2,680 28,547 1,499 96,033 1991 53,654 2,650 24,282 2,470 83,056 1996 45,296 3,026 16,193 2,450 66,965 2001 67,567 9,046 28,805 7,017 112,435 2007 35,317 7,219 8,847 3,754 55,137 56,485 2012 37,900 7,400 9,100 3,200 57,600 62,567 2017 40,600 7,700 9,500 2,600 60,400 67,427 2022 43,500 7,900 9,900 2,100 63,400 71,677 2027 46,600 8,200 10,300 1,500 66,600 76,290 Average Annual Growth Rate 2007-2012 1.4% 0.5% 0.6% -3.1% 0.9% 2.1% 2012-2017 1.4% 0.8% 0.9% -4.1% 1.0% 1.5% 2017-2022 1.4% 0.5% 0.8% -4.2% 1.0% 1.2% 2022-2027 1.4% 0.7% 0.8% -6.5% 1.0% 1.3%

Aviation Forecasts 3-54 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.7.5 Total Operations

Table 3-36 presents the forecast of total operations at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport for the combined elements of commercial service operations, general aviation operations, and military operations.

Table 3-36 TOTAL OPERATIONS FORECAST

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000 Total Operations Total 40,000

20,000

0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Historical Total Ops Selected Forecast Ops FAA 2008 TAF Operations

Operations Year Historical Forecast 1976 127,762 1981 100,875 1986 118,685 1991 108,371 1996 88,567 2001 147,347 2007 77,223 2012 81,000 2017 85,300 2022 89,900 2027 94,800 Average Annual Growth Rate 2007-2012 1.0% 2012-2017 1.0% 2017-2022 1.1% 2022-2027 1.1%

Aviation Forecasts 3-55 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.7.6 Instrument Operations

An instrument operation, as defined by the FAA for towered airports, are arrivals or departures in accordance with an Instrument Fight Rules (IFR) flight plan, special Visual Flight Rules (VFR) procedures (Stage III/TCA Operations only), or an operation where IFR separation between aircraft is provided by a terminal control facility. There are three kinds of instrument operations:

 Primary Instrument Operations are the departures or arrivals at the airport at which the approach control facility is located.

 Secondary Instrument Operations are the arrivals and departures at all the secondary airports combined.

 Overflight operations are those in which an aircraft transits the area without intent to land.

Historical primary instrument operations data for the Airport, as well as forecasts for primary instrument operations by aircraft type are presented in Table 3-37. Annual primary instrument operations have decreased from 81,114 in 1991 to 65,544 in 2007, representing an average annual decrease of 1.3 percent during this period. Primary instrument operations are anticipated to increase at the same pro-rata share that each component of total operations is anticipated to increase over the planning period for a total of 77,700 primary instrument operations in 2027.

Table 3-38 shows the total historical and forecast instrument operations including not only the primary instrument operations, but also the secondary and overflight instrument operations for the planning period. The total instrument operations are anticipated to grow to 151,000 operations by 2027.

Aviation Forecasts 3-56 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-37 PRIMARY INSTRUMENT OPERATIONS

Air Carrier Commuter General Aviation Military Total Year Historical Forecast Historical Forecast Historical Forecast Historical Forecast Primary 1990 10,339 16,414 57,806 2,873 87,432 1991 7,944 17,054 53,271 2,845 81,114 1992 5,917 13,222 38,810 2,640 60,589 1993 2,551 5,807 17,418 947 26,723 1994 7,319 17,983 52,269 3,333 80,904 1995 7,409 16,852 48,074 3,065 75,400 1996 7,875 13,462 45,534 3,219 70,090 1997 9,450 13,099 45,612 2,675 70,836 1998 10,541 12,829 45,808 3,202 72,380 1999 12,608 10,712 48,869 4,628 76,817 2000 10,181 12,842 48,271 5,751 77,045 2001 7,473 16,232 46,125 6,271 76,101 2002 5,757 18,374 43,270 7,720 75,121 2003 4,845 19,456 41,378 7,257 72,936 2004 5,253 17,847 39,719 8,064 70,883 2005 4,736 18,645 37,687 9,249 70,317 2006 3,966 18,238 35,997 7,047 65,248 2007 3,450 18,836 35,498 7,760 65,544

2012 2,300 16,400 41,600 7,130 67,400

2017 2,130 17,100 44,400 6,910 70,500

2022 2,030 17,800 47,400 6,700 73,900

2027 1,970 18,700 50,500 6,490 77,700

Average Annual Growth Rate 2007-2012 -7.8% -2.7% 3.2% -1.7%0.6% 2012-2017 -1.5% 0.8% 1.3% -0.6% 0.9% 2017-2022 -1.0% 0.8% 1.3% -0.6% 0.9% 2022-2026 -0.6% 1.0% 1.3% -0.6% 1.0%

Aviation Forecasts 3-57 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-38 SUMMARY OF TOTAL INSTRUMENT OPERATIONS

Total Total Total Total Year Instrument Primary Secondary Overflights Ops 1990 87,432 5,881 28,825 122,138 1991 81,114 5,532 27,568 114,214 1992 60,589 4,533 21,293 86,415 1993 26,723 1,919 10,390 39,032 1994 80,904 6,163 30,151 117,218 1995 75,400 6,392 30,286 112,078 1996 70,090 5,811 28,859 104,760 1997 70,836 5,751 29,993 106,580 1998 72,380 6,368 33,400 112,148 1999 76,817 6,986 36,544 120,347 2000 77,045 6,131 26,573 109,749 2001 76,101 6,061 25,651 107,813 2002 75,121 6,160 28,694 109,975 2003 72,936 6,228 28,441 107,605 2004 70,883 8,552 28,725 108,160 2005 70,317 20,135 27,378 117,830 2006 65,248 19,873 25,853 110,974 2007 65,544 23,574 27,152 116,270 2012 67,400 25,800 29,500 122,700 2017 70,500 28,400 32,400 131,400 2022 73,900 31,200 35,600 140,700 2027 77,700 34,300 39,100 151,000 Average Annual Growth 2007-2012 0.6% 1.8% 1.7% 1.1% 2012-2017 0.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.4% 2017-2022 0.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.4% 2022-2027 1.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.4%

Aviation Forecasts 3-58 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.8 DESIGN DAY / DESIGN HOUR ACTIVITY FORECAST

Capacity analysis and determination of future facility requirements are often based on design day or design hour activity levels. To avoid the construction and operational cost of acquiring capacity that would be rarely used, design day and design hour activity levels should be representative of busy periods, but not the absolute peak periods at the Airport. During unusually high activity periods such as the Wednesday before and the Sunday after Thanksgiving Day, Airport facilities can be expected to experience more crowded conditions and longer, but not unreasonable or intolerable, processing times.

The design day level of activity is often calculated in airport planning using a peak month/average day definition. Table 3-39 shows the high, low, and average monthly distributions of annual enplanements. Table 3-40 shows the high, low, and average monthly distribution of annual total operations. As is common when evaluating such data at various airports, the calendar month that experienced the highest level of activity in a given year often varies. However, the annual activity in the peak month expressed as a percentage of annual activity is usually constant from year to year. If annual activity were equally distributed among all 12 months in a year, monthly activity would be approximately 8.3 percent.

At the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, the peak month for passenger enplanements is typically December with a maximum monthly activity of 9.8 percent of the annual enplanements. Interviews with airline station managers indicate that the passenger traffic has typical airline passenger activity such as busy Monday morning and Friday night traffic. In addition, all holidays see higher traffic. The peak month for operations is usually October, with a maximum monthly activity of 10.1 percent of the annual operations.

Aviation Forecasts 3-59 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-39 MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL ENPLANEMENTS

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0% Monthly Distribution of Annual Enplanements

0.0% January March May July September November

Average Maximum Minimum

Month Average Maximum Minimum January 7.2% 8.3% 6.9%

February 7.2% 7.9% 6.9%

March 8.5% 9.6% 8.1%

April 8.1% 8.9% 7.3%

May 9.1% 9.4% 8.8%

June 9.0% 9.4% 8.6%

July 8.6% 9.1% 7.9%

August 8.3% 9.0% 7.8%

September 7.7% 8.3% 5.5%

October 9.0% 9.6% 8.4%

November 8.4% 9.0% 8.4%

December 8.8% 9.8% 8.4% Source: Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport records

Aviation Forecasts 3-60 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-40 MONTHLY DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL TOTAL OPERATIONS

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

6.0% Operations

4.0%

2.0%

0.0% January March May July September November

Average Maximum Minimum

Month Average Maximum Minimum January 8.0% 8.6% 7.1%

February 7.7% 8.5% 6.4%

March 9.0% 9.9% 8.0%

April 8.7% 9.0% 8.3%

May 8.3% 9.1% 7.4%

June 8.4% 9.3% 8.0%

July 8.3% 9.6% 7.3%

August 8.9% 9.7% 8.6%

September 8.1% 9.3% 6.8%

October 9.3% 10.1% 8.5%

November 8.0% 8.5% 7.5%

December 7.2% 7.6% 6.7% Source: Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport records

Aviation Forecasts 3-61 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Peak 20-minute enplanement and deplanement estimates are based on the flight schedule of the Airport. Based on the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport’s schedule of September 2008, and projections forward of the schedule based on knowledge of the aviation industry and the aircraft that each airline is flying today, as well as the aircraft orders that each airline has placed, schedules were developed for each planning year. These can be found in Appendix F. While not predictions of actual flight schedules, the hypothetical schedules are examples of how airlines might arrange their flights to maximize the passenger feed through their respective hubs and protect their market from competing carriers.

Utilizing the annual enplaned passenger forecasts for the Preferred Enplanement forecast found in Table 3-20, the Preferred Commercial Operations forecast found in Table 3-34 and the percentages of daily passengers and commercial flights found in the projected schedules, design day and design hour forecasts for the Preferred Enplanement forecast are shown in Table 3-41.

Table 3-41 DESIGN DAY/DESIGN HOUR FOR THE SELECTED COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FORECAST 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027

Annual Enplaned Passengers passengers 296,083 306,500 352,500 401,800 457,900 Peak Month (9.8% of annual) passengers 29,016 30,037 34,545 39,376 44,874 Average Day (31 days) passengers 936 969 1,114 1,270 1,448

Peak Hour Commercial Passengers Enplanements passengers 133 142 187 224 237 Percentage Of Day percentage 14.2% 14.7% 16.8% 17.7% 16.4% Deplanements passengers 174 139 199 209 257 Percentage of Day percentage 18.6% 14.3% 17.8% 16.5% 17.8% Total passengers 147 264 425 421 426 Percentage of Day percentage 15.7% 27.2% 38.2% 33.2% 29.4%

Peak 20-minute Commercial Passengers Enplanements passengers 102 128 208 173 202 Percentage of Day percentage 10.9% 13.2% 18.6% 13.6% 13.9% Deplanements passengers 144 104 142 140 173 Percentage of Day percentage 15.4% 10.7% 12.7% 11.0% 12.0%

Commercial Passenger Operations Annual operations 20,270 20,900 21,600 22,300 24,700 Average Day operations 64 66 68 70 78 Peak Hour Total operations 8 8 8 9 10 Percentage of Day operations 12.5% 11.7% 12.1% 12.6% 12.6% Departures operations 9 4 6 7 7 Percentage of Day percentage 14.1% 6.3% 8.6% 9.5% 9.5% Arrivals operations 9 4 6 7 8 Percentage of Day percentage 13.5% 5.7% 8.3% 9.8% 9.8%

Aviation Forecasts 3-62 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.9 COMPARISON WITH THE FAA TERMINAL AREA FORECAST

The FAA reviews forecasts prepared in a master plan and compares them to the Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) projections. The FAA Revision to Guidance on Review and Approval of Aviation Forecasts memorandum of December 23, 2004 states that the FAA Office of Aviation Policy and Plans will find a locally developed forecast for operations, based aircraft, and enplanements consistent with the Terminal Area Forecast if it meets any of the following three conditions for a non-hub, commercial service airport.

 The forecast differs less than 10 percent in the five-year forecast period and 15 percent in the 10-year period, or

 Forecast activity levels do not affect the timing or scale of an airport project, or

 The forecast activity levels do not affect the role of the Airport as defined in FAA Order 5090.3C, Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems.

Actual enplanements at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport for 2007 were approximately 2.4 percent above the preliminary FAA 2008 TAF. This chapter presented five forecasts and methodologies as follows:

 Market share analyses, which compare the performance of the local market to the national market  Trend analyses, specifically average annual growth based on specific periods of Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport enplanement activity, as well as the FAA National Growth trend  Regression analyses, which examine various socioeconomic indicators to determine if strong relationships exist between the indicators and annual enplaned passengers  The FAA’s preliminary 2008 Terminal Area Forecasts for the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport based on FY 2006 activity  The Indexed TAF, which is a modification to the FAA 2008 TAF that recognizes the actual passenger enplanement increases of FY 2007

Three of these also presented related scenarios for 16 passenger enplanement forecasts. All of these forecasts were subsequently reduced to the Preferred Forecast, which is the Remain at Current Market Share forecast.

Table 3-42 presents a comparison of the Preferred Enplanement forecast and the preliminary FAA 2008 TAF forecast. The Preferred Operations forecast is compared to the FAA 2008 TAF and is presented in Table 3-43. The Preferred Based Aircraft forecast is compared to the December 2007 FAA TAF, as the preliminary FAA 2008 TAF does not include projections of based aircraft. The comparison for based aircraft is presented in Table 3-44.

Aviation Forecasts 3-63 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-42 COMPARISON OF THE FAA 2008 TAF AND THE PREFERRED ENPLANEMENT FORECAST

500,000

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000 Enplanements 150,000

100,000

50,000

0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2007 2012 2017 2022

Historical FAA 2008 TAF Indexed TAF Remain at Current Market Share

Percent Remain at Percent Difference Current Difference FAA 2008 Indexed From FAA Market From FAA Year Enplanements TAF TAF 2008 TAF Share 2008 TAF 1976 256,320 1981 227,759 1986 272,468 1991 274,480 1996 239,318 2001 278,097 2007 296,083 289,158 2012 306,261 315,800 3.1% 306,500 0.1% 2017 326,817 337,000 3.1% 352,500 7.9% 2022 348,961 359,800 3.1% 401,800 15.1% 2027 1 372,792 384,400 3.1% 457,900 22.8% Average Annual Growth 2007-2012 0.7% 1.3% n/a 0.7% n/a 2012-2017 1.3% 1.3% n/a 2.8% n/a 2017-2022 1.3% 1.3% n/a 2.7% n/a 2022-2027 1.3% 1.3% n/a 2.6% n/a 1 The FAA TAF does not include a forecast for the year 2027. The forecast shown for this year was projected for comparison using the same Average Annual Growth rate. Source: FAA Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport

Aviation Forecasts 3-64 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-43 COMPARISON OF FAA 2008 TAF AND THE PREFERRED TOTAL OPERATIONS FORECAST

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000 Total Operations Total 40,000

20,000

0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Historical Total Ops Preferred Forecast Ops FAA 2008 TAF Operations

Percent FAA Preferred Difference Historical 2008 Operations From FAA Year Operations TAF Forecast 2008 TAF 1976 127,762 1981 100,875 1986 118,685 1991 108,371 1996 88,567 2001 147,347 2007 76,925 78,651 2012 85,616 80,300 -6.2% 2017 91,467 84,200 -7.9% 2022 96,759 88,400 -8.6% 2027 102,451 93,000 -9.2% Average Annual Growth 2007-2012 1.7% 0.9% 2012-2017 1.3% 1.0% 2017-2022 1.1% 1.0% 2022-2027 1.1% 1.0% 1 The FAA TAF does not include a forecast for the year 2027. The forecast shown for this year was projected for comparison using the same Average Annual Growth rate. Source: FAA

Aviation Forecasts 3-65 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-44 COMPARISON OF FAA 2007 TAF AND THE PREFERRED BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 Based Aircraft Based 60 40 20 0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Historical Preferred Based Aircraft Forecast FAA December 2007 TAF

Selected Percent FAA Based Difference December Aircraft From FAA Year Historical 2007 TAF Forecast 2007 TAF 1976 0 1981 178 1986 161 1991 124 1996 114 2001 121 2007 114 90 26.7% 2012 95 122 28.6% 2017 101 131 29.7% 2022 106 140 32.5% 2027 n/a 151 n/a Average Annual Growth 2007-2012 -3.6% 1.4% n/a 2012-2017 1.2% 1.4% n/a 2017-2022 1.0% 1.4% n/a 2022-2027 n/a 1.4% n/a 1 The FAA TAF does not include a forecast for the year 2027. The forecast shown for this year was projected for comparison using the same Average Annual Growth rate. Source: FAA

Aviation Forecasts 3-66 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

The Preferred Enplanement forecast is within 0.1 percent of the FAA 2008 TAF in the five-year forecast and within 7.9 percent of the FAA 2008 TAF for the 10-year forecast. The Preferred Operations forecast is within 6.2 percent of the FAA 2008 TAF for the five-year forecast and is within 7.9 percent of the FAA 2008 TAF for the 10-year forecast.

The Preferred Based Aircraft forecast selected for the Master Plan Update is 28.6 percent higher than the FAA December 2007 TAF for the five-year period and 29.7 percent higher in the 10-year period. Therefore, the Preferred Based Aircraft forecast is not within the five- and 10-year threshold limits of the FAA TAF.

The FAA Aerospace Forecasts FY 2008-2025 calls for general aviation aircraft to increase at a rate of 1.4 percent annually for the planning period. The FAA FY 2007-2025 Summary TAF Report projects the based aircraft in the southern region of the United States to rise by approximately 0.87 percent per year between 2007 and 2025. The FAA December 2006 TAF was remarkably similar to the Preferred Based Aircraft forecast. The Tennessee Aviation System Plan’s 2005 forecast is 7.6 percent higher than the FAA December 2006 TAF in the five-year forecast and 11.5 percent higher in the 10-year forecast.

According to the Airport’s FAA 5010 form, there were 114-based aircraft at the Airport in 2007. The FAA December 2007 TAF indicates 90 based aircraft at the Airport. If the 90 were corrected to 114-based aircraft, and the same average annual growth rate was applied, it is likely that the Preferred Based Aircraft forecast would be within one percent in the five-year forecast and two percent in the 10-year forecast.

FAA guidance on the review and approval of locally produced aviation forecasts is that the forecast must meet one or more of the conditions stated above to be consistent with the TAF. This Master Plan Update’s Preferred Enplanement and Preferred Operations forecasts meet the conditions of the FAA guidance requirements. The Preferred Based Aircraft forecast does not.

Table 4-45 is a summary comparison of the Preferred Forecasts to the FAA 2008 TAF in the format suggested by Appendix C of the FAA document Forecasting Aviation Activity by Airport.

Aviation Forecasts 3-67 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-45 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE PREFERRED FORECAST TO FAA 2008 TAF Percent Difference FAA 2008 Preferred From FAA Year TAF Forecast 2008 TAF Passenger Enplanements Base Year FY 289,158 296,083 2.4% Base yr. + 5 yrs 2012 306,261 306,500 0.1% Base yr. + 10 yrs 2017 326,817 352,500 7.9% Base yr. + 15 yrs 2022 348,961 401,800 15.1% Commercial Operations Base Year FY 22,166 21,788 -1.7% Base yr. + 5 yrs 2012 23,047 22,700 -1.5% Base yr. + 10 yrs 2017 24,040 23,800 -1.0% Base yr. + 15 yrs 2022 25,082 24,900 -0.7% Total Operations Base Year FY 78,651 76,900 -2.2% Base yr. + 5 yrs 2012 85,616 80,300 -6.2% Base yr. + 10 yrs 2017 91,467 84,200 -7.9% Base yr. + 15 yrs 2022 96,759 88,400 -8.6%

Table 4-46 shows the forecast levels, average annual growth rates, and operational factors in a format indicated in Appendix B of the FAA document Forecasting Aviation Activity by Airport.

Aviation Forecasts 3-68 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-46 FORECAST LEVELS, GROWTH RATES, AND OPERATIONAL FACTORS A. Forecast Levels and Growth Rates Base Year: FY 2007 Average Annual Compound Growth Rate Base Yr. Base Base Base Base Base Yr. Base Yr. Base Yr. Base Yr. Level Yr.+1yr. Yr.+5yrs. Yr.+10yrs. Yr.+15yrs. to +1 to +5 to +10 to +15 Passenger Enplanements 1 Air Carrier 94,776 86,523 98,111 112,835 128,616 -8.7% 0.7% 1.8% 2.1% Commuter 201,307 183,777 208,389 239,665 273,184 -8.7% 0.7% 1.8% 2.1% TOTAL 296,083 270,300 306,500 352,500 401,800 -8.7% 0.7% 1.8% 2.1% Operations Itinerant Passenger air carrier 2,869 2,622 2,431 2,260 2,147 -8.6% -3.3% -2.4% -1.9% Passenger commuter/air taxi 17,402 17,604 18,453 19,318 20,137 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% Total Commercial Passenger Operations 20,270 20,226 20,884 21,578 22,283 -0.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% Air Cargo 1,518 1,576 1,829 2,204 2,656 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% General Aviation 35,317 35,811 37,859 40,585 43,506 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% Military 7,219 7,264 7,448 7,684 7,927 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% Local General aviation 8,847 8,897 9,097 9,512 9,927 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% Military 3,754 3,642 3,194 2,634 2,074 -3.0% -3.2% -3.5% -3.9% TOTAL OPERATIONS 76,925 77,416 80,312 84,197 88,374 0.6% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% Primary Instrument Operations 65,544 65,015 67,403 70,575 73,938 -0.8% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% Total Instrument Operations 116,270 116,300 122,700 131,400 140,700 0.0% 1.1% 1.2% 1.3% Peak Hour Commercial Operations 9 9 10 10 10 -0.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% Peak Hour Operations 35 36 37 39 41 0.6% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% Cargo/mail (enplaned + deplaned tons) CY 8,854 9,198 10,678 12,867 15,504 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% Based Aircraft Single Engine (Non-jet) 36 37 39 41 44 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% Multi Engine (Non-jet) 16 16 17 18 20 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% Jet Engine 61 62 65 70 75 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% Helicopter 1 1 1 1 1 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% Other 0 0 0 0 0 1.8% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% TOTAL 114 116 122 131 140 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% Table 3-43 continued on next page

Aviation Forecasts 3-69 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-43 continued B. Operational Factors Base Yr. Base Base Base Yr. Base Level Yr.+1yr. Yr.+5yrs. +10yrs. Yr.+15yrs. Average aircraft size (seats) Air carrier 83 83 99 119 140 Commuter 18 36 38 40 42 Average enplaned load factor Air carrier 80.0% 80.0% 81.7% 83.8% 85.9% Commuter 58.0% 58.0% 60.0% 62.5% 65.0% GA operations per based aircraft 387 387 384 382 380 1 Enplanements before 2008 included non-revenue passengers

Aviation Forecasts 3-70 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

3.10 SUMMARY OF FORECASTS

This section provides a summary of the Master Plan Update forecasts. Information from this chapter will be used in the remainder of the Master Plan Update to assess the capacity of the existing Airport facilities and provide planning guidance for any needed facility expansion.

The Air Service Area for the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport or approximately the Chattanooga Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) has experienced steady if modest population, economic, and employment growth from 1969 to the present. While the population of the Chattanooga MSA is expected to grow at a slower rate than the states of Tennessee and Georgia, and the United States, the growth in PCPI is expected to outpace slightly all of the comparables including the State of Georgia within the forecast period. Employment is also expected to keep pace with or exceed the other comparable areas throughout the forecast period.

These demographic projections were made prior to the July 15, 2008 announcement by the Volkswagen Group of America that it will build an automotive production facility in Chattanooga and invest $1 billion in the economy. Production of a new Volkswagen sedan is expected to begin in 2011 and will result in 2,000 direct jobs. Approximately 12,000 additional jobs are anticipated to be added to the Chattanooga Metropolitan Statistical Area by the automotive parts suppliers.

The Airport was severely impacted by the attacks of September 11, 2001. Only now is it returning to the year 2000 annual passenger enplanement levels. A low cost carrier, Allegiant Air, began service to the Airport in October of 2006 and added additional service and an additional destination in December of 2007. By June of 2008, Allegiant is operating ten weekly flights to three destinations using 150-seat MD-80 aircraft.

Skybus, another low cost carrier, announced daily service to Columbus, Ohio. These flights began in December of 2007. However, in April of 2008, due to high fuel costs, Skybus was forced to declare bankruptcy and cease operations.

The interest shown by low cost carrier entrants to the Chattanooga market could positively influence passenger enplanements to the market, particularly as both airlines planned to tap new markets for Chattanooga. Allegiant caters primarily to the leisure market and both Skybus and Allegiant deliberately targeted the Atlanta market with service through Chattanooga.

Utilizing different methodologies, 18 forecasts are presented in this chapter. Of these forecasts, the forecast developed by comparing Chattanooga’s share of the total U.S. enplanement market for a Remain at Current Market Share forecast was selected as the Preferred Enplanement forecast for the following reasons:

 The FAA 2008 TAF was based on FY 2006 enplanement data.

 The Indexed TAF takes into consideration the enplanement data between the end of FY 2006 and the end of FY 2007 on September 30, 2007.

 Since September of 2007, Allegiant Air added two flights per week to Ft. Lauderdale, FL and an additional flight to Orlando, FL using an MD-80 aircraft. Enjoying load factors between 96.7 and 80.1 percent for an average load factor of 86.3 percent, this adds approximately 20,250 annual enplanements.

Aviation Forecasts 3-71 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

 While Skybus has declared bankruptcy and left the Airport, their one flight per day was not counted into the FY 2007 annual enplanements as they only began service to the Airport in December of 2007.

 While Continental has announced that they will be leaving the Airport, American has agreed to add an additional flight per day to Dallas/Fort Worth, thereby reducing by more than half the impact of the Continental departure. The result is a loss of approximately 7,300 annual enplanements.

 In the last five years, Chattanooga has added seven new destinations to their schedule.

 The announcement of the building of a new Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga with an increase of up to 12,000 jobs could translate into as much as 5,900 annual enplanements.

Commercial aircraft operations at the Airport are expected to increase at a slower rate than the enplanements over the next 20 years. This is because the commercial passenger aircraft are predicted to become larger rather than more numerous. The Preferred Operations forecast, indicates that the commercial passenger operations would reach approximately 24,700 operations per year in 2027. The general aviation operations are also expected to increase with moderate growth reaching approximately 57,000 operations by 2027. The military operations are expected to decrease over the planning period to approximately 9,700 operations in 2027. The based aircraft are expected to increase at a steady but conservative rate reaching 151-based aircraft in 2027, up from the 114-based aircraft in 2007.

A summary of the Preferred Forecast is found in Table 3-47.

Aviation Forecasts 3-72 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 3-47 SUMMARY OF THE SELECTED FORECAST Description 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Annual Enplanements 296,083 306,500 352,500 401,800 457,900

Commercial Passenger Annual Operations 20,270 20,900 21,600 22,300 24,700

Based Aircraft 114 122 131 140 151

Total General Aviation Operations 44,164 47,000 50,100 53,400 57,000 Total Military Operations 10,973 10,640 10,320 10,000 9,700 Total Air Cargo Operations 1,520 1,830 2,200 2,660 3,200 Total Operations 78,651 80,300 84,200 88,400 93,000 Instrument Operations 116,270 122,700 131,400 140,700 151,000

Total Short Tons of Air Cargo 8,861 10,678 12,867 15,504 18,683

Aviation Forecasts 3-73 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

CHAPTER 4 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The facility requirements chapter analyzes the ability of the current facilities at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport to accommodate existing and forecast aviation activity. As illustrated in the previous chapter, the Airport has experienced significant growth in passengers and commercial service operations. Future facility requirements described in this chapter are based on the ability of the existing airport configuration to accommodate the forecast aviation activity. Specific facility expansion and airport development alternatives to meet the future facility needs are addressed in Chapter 5, Alternatives Development and Evaluation. The development of facility requirements for the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is presented in the following sections of this chapter:

 Emerging Trends  Airfield Requirements  Commercial Service Passenger Terminal Building  General Aviation Requirements  Air Cargo Requirements  Support Facilities  Circulation and Parking Requirements  Summary of Facility Requirements

4.2 EMERGING TRENDS

The aviation industry is an ever-changing arena where evolving technologies, new security procedures and logistics, and airline mergers can greatly influence the size, type, configuration, and longevity of an airport’s facilities. The changes often happen quickly, yet these industry trends must be taken into consideration when developing facility requirements to insure that not only the traditional influences are considered, but the emerging trends as well. This section addresses a few emerging trends that will likely have influence on the facility requirements of Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport in the future.

4.2.1 Increased Low Cost Carrier Activity

In October of 2006, Allegiant Airlines, a Low Cost Carrier (LCC), began service to the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. One of Allegiant’s operating strategies is to enter a market not from the primary airport of that market but from a smaller, less utilized airport adjacent to the market. Therefore, when Allegiant entered the Chattanooga market, they were not only targeting Chattanooga, but Atlanta as well. Atlanta is known to be running out of capacity, and the competition at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport is strong. The FAA told Atlanta in May 2006 that they need to start looking for a second airport. Chattanooga has made it clear that they would like to be the second Atlanta airport.

Skybus Airlines, another LCC, also saw the potential for Chattanooga to serve Atlanta and in December 2007 began service to Chattanooga. Skybus chose not to advertise to the Chattanooga market, but to the Atlanta market. While Skybus has since declared bankruptcy due in large part to increasing fuel prices, it does not lessen the fact that Chattanooga has increasingly seen more LCC operations. Allegiant has increased their flights and is considering adding new flights.

Aviation Forecasts 4-1 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Increased Peak Hour Demand on the Commercial Passenger Terminal

The increase in LCC activity has come with larger aircraft. Where the majority of the aircraft serving the Airport prior to the entrance of Allegiant have been 50-seat aircraft or smaller, Allegiant operates only MD-80 aircraft. The MD-80 has 150-seats and Allegiant has been experiencing high load factors. Skybus was operating A319 aircraft with 124 seats.

Because of the increased size of the LCC aircraft, the result has been that both the enplaning peak hour and the deplaning peak hour have been significantly higher than previously experienced at the Airport. More passengers are trying to check-in at the same time and more passengers are trying to pass through security at the same time. Additional passengers are also deplaning the incoming aircraft and trying to get their baggage from baggage claim. The same numbers of passengers spread out between three 50-seat aircraft do not have the same impact on the facilities as one 150-seat aircraft. If a 150-seat aircraft is departing within the same hour as two 50-seat aircraft, the impact is heightened. If two or more 150-seat aircraft are taking off even in adjacent hours, the increased simultaneous demand on all of the Airport’s facilities can cause the facilities to stress, if they are not properly sized.

Increased Passenger Parking Demand

The LCC’s affect the parking facilities through not only the increased peak hour demands, but LCC’s also tend to cater to the vacation market. Their low fares are coupled with longer stays of typically a week or more. This presents at least two issues for airport parking. First, the LCC passenger typically does not want to pay more for their parking than they did for their airfare. With longer stays in the parking facilities, the overall price of parking increases. For this reason, airports that have experienced increased LCC activity have found that the LCC passenger is looking for cheap parking and does not mind parking some distance away to pay less when they return.

Secondly, because of the longer stays, the parking space itself does not turn over as often. This means that more parking spaces need to be provided to accommodate the same number of passengers that may have stayed a shorter period, such as the business traveler who typically is gone only two to three days.

4.2.2 Very Light Jets

Very Light Jets (VLJ), which have also been called Personal Jets, Microjets, and Personal Light Jets (PLJ), are defined by the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) in their publication Training Guidelines for Single Pilot Operations of Very Light Jets and Technically Advanced Aircraft as “Jet aircraft weighing 10,000 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight and certificated for single pilot operations. These aircraft will possess at least some of the following features: (1) advanced cockpit animation, such as moving map GPS and multi-function displays; (2) automated engine and systems management; and (3) integrated autoflight, autopilot and flight guidance systems.”

There are over a dozen manufacturers of the VLJ, but only two of these, Cessna and Eclipse, have achieved certification for their aircraft, and many are expected to drop out before their respective aircraft achieve certification. While over 3,000 of these aircraft have reportedly been ordered, only about 250 have been delivered. The reason for their popularity is that they can fly at higher speeds at altitudes ranging from 18,000 feet to 41,000 feet thus climbing over weather, can land on

Aviation Forecasts 4-2 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

runways approximately 3,000 feet in length, have short- to mid-ranges of about 300 to 600 nautical miles and are priced at between $1.5 and $4 million.

While the air taxi services and the air charter services using these aircraft have received a lot of press, it was initially conceived as a business jet that would allow access to airports with shorter runways and less congestion. Increasingly, smaller corporations are ordering the aircraft to allow them to access more markets more quickly. The VLJ has the potential to reinvigorate the general aviation industry as these affordable, fast aircraft are predicted to become very popular corporate fleet aircraft, as well as air taxi and air charter aircraft.

4.2.3 Departure of the Tennessee Air National Guard

The 241st Electronic Installation Squadron (EIS) of the Tennessee Air National Guard is a non- flying, electronic and installation unit, which occupies approximately 11 acres at the southeast corner of the intersection of Runways 02-20 and 15-33. The Guard has announced their intention of vacating the Airport within the next five years. There are currently four buildings on the site, but the value of the property is in its central location on the east side of the airfield. Having this property available will create a number of opportunities to relocate other Airport facilities.

4.2.4 Potential Increase in Cargo Activity at Chattanooga

While there has been a general erosion of cargo tonnage at many U.S. airports, losses have been particularly severe at many “spoke” airports in cargo carriers’ hub systems. These airports have been marginalized both by passenger carriers offering less belly space and by all-cargo carriers maximizing their utilization of trucks on domestic segments in order to allocate freighters to high- growth markets such as intra-Asia and trans-Pacific routes. The competitive economics of trucks has been augmented by unprecedented fuel costs, which further drives cargo from aircraft to trucks.

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport had an extremely erratic ten-year period between 1997 and 2006 but ultimately still managed to grow its total cargo volume by 75 percent over that span. Entirely due to the introduction of all-cargo flights in 2005, Chattanooga experienced this dramatic growth in spite of having annual losses in more individual years than gains during the period. Chattanooga’s “relative prosperity” differs greatly with the region’s dominant gateway, Atlanta, and Birmingham, which lost approximately 14 percent and almost 30 percent, respectively, during the same period. However, as is typical of the vast majority of U.S. airports, Chattanooga experienced diminishing increments of mail throughout the period.

Aviation Forecasts 4-3 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

4.3 AIRFIELD REQUIREMENTS

The airfield is the system of components upon which aircraft operate. Airfield requirements are affected by demand; capacity; aircraft mix; runway, taxiway, and gate design standards; airspace; and navigational and visual aids. This section looks at the following areas of the airfield at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport:

 Airfield capacity analysis  Runway requirements  Taxiway requirements  Electronic, visual, and satellite aids to navigation

4.3.1 Airfield Capacity Analysis

Airfield capacity is an estimate of the number of aircraft that can be processed through the airfield system during a specific period with acceptable levels of delay. The airfield capacity analysis identifies the annual capacity of the airfield, referred to as the annual service volume, and the hourly capacity based on the current operational characteristics.

Major factors that affect airfield capacity include the runway configuration, air traffic control operating procedures, weather conditions, and aircraft fleet mix. For instance, required separation distances between aircraft are greatly increased during inclement weather. As a result, the number of aircraft that can operate at an airport under instrument meteorological conditions will be much less than during visual meteorological conditions.

The goal of the analysis is to determine the airfield capacity and the sufficiency of the runways to handle the peak hour and annual demand. This was done using the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5 Airport Capacity and Delay, which uses the factors of aircraft mix index, the runway use configuration, the Airport meteorology, and the percentage of touch-and go operations to determine these values. The values developed were compared to the long-range forecasts for the Airport to determine whether any shortfalls exist or will develop.

The aircraft mix index is a factor in the hourly capacity for an airfield. It is the relative percentage of operations conducted by each of the four classes of aircraft shown in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATIONS Maximum Certified Wake Aircraft Takeoff Weight Number of Turbulence Class (pounds) Engines Classification A 12,500 or less Single Small (S) B 12,500 or less Multi Small (S) C 12,500 – 300,000 Multi Large (L) D Over 300,000 Multi Heavy (H) Source: FAA AC 150/5060-5 Airport Capacity and Delay

The mix index is a mathematical calculation of the percent of Class C aircraft plus three times the percent of Class D aircraft. The mix index can range between zero and 180. Smaller indexes reflect predominately-small aircraft in the operational fleet mix and higher indexes represent a

Aviation Forecasts 4-4 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update larger aircraft fleet mix. The mix index for Chattanooga for each of the planning years, based on the number of operations projected to occur by aircraft type is shown in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL FLEET

Aircraft 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Class Ops. % Ops. % Ops. % Ops. % Ops. % A 17,412 22.6% 18,413 22.9% 18,904 22.6% 19,926 22.6% 21,171 22.4% B 29,866 38.8% 31,043 38.6% 32,505 38.8% 34,530 39.1% 36,057 38.2% C 29,649 38.5% 30,874 38.4% 32,330 38.6% 33,904 38.4% 37,273 39.4% D 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 76,927 100.0% 80,330 100.0% 83,739 100.0% 88,360 100.0% 94,500 100.0% Mix Index 29,649 38.5% 30,874 38.4% 32,330 38.6% 33,904 38.4% 37,273 39.4% Source: FAA AC 150/5060-5 Airport Capacity and Delay

The runway use configuration is the number, relative location, and orientation or direction of the runways. It also includes the direction of the operations under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations in effect and the relative percentage of time that each of these are used. The airfield layout for Chattanooga is shown in Figure 4-1.

Aviation Forecasts 4-5 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 4-1 IFR AND VFR AIRFIELD CONFIGURATIONS

Aviation Forecasts 4-6 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

The IFR and VFR operations are influenced by weather conditions at the Airport. The operations reflect changes in visibility as well as wind direction and velocity. Meteorological records indicate that the Airport experiences weather below the operational minimums only one percent of the time.

Touch-and-go operations are those where the pilot lands and departs from a runway without exiting the runway. These are most commonly performed as training exercises. They affect the capacity of an airport in that when they make up a large percentage of the operations, they increase the capacity because aircraft in this type of pattern are nearly always available for approaches. Nevertheless, they can also reduce the capacity of an airport if they keep other aircraft from being able to use the airfield. Chattanooga’s touch-and-go traffic is less than ten percent of the total aircraft activity and so is not considered to affect negatively the Airport’s capacity.

Peak Hour Airfield Capacity

By utilizing the factors of aircraft mix index, the airfield layout, the airport meteorology, and touch- and go operations, the peak-hour airfield capacity is calculated for VFR and IFR operations and the results are shown in Table 4-3. The Peak Month Average Day Peak Hour (PMADPH) demand of the airfield is also calculated.

It is generally accepted that it is cost effective to increase the capacity of a runway when demand or PMADPHD reaches 90 percent of the hourly capacity of the runway. This means that 10 percent of the time, the runway system is failing and 90 percent of the time, it is functioning properly.

The PMADPH for Chattanooga throughout the planning period ranges from 53.3 percent to 66.0 percent of the IFR capacity, indicating that there is no need to increase airfield capacity.

Table 4-3 PEAK HOUR AIRFIELD CAPACITY 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Mix Index 39 38 39 38 39 Hourly Capacity VFR 77 77 77 77 77 Hourly Capacity IFR 57 57 57 57 57 Peak Month Average Day Peak Hour Demand 30 30 32 35 38 PMADPHD as a percentage of IFR 53.3% 52.1% 56.5% 61.8% 66.0% Source: FAA AC 150/5060-5 Airport Capacity and Delay

4.3.2 Runway Requirements

The runways at an airport are an important component of the airfield system upon which aircraft operate. Runways must be configured to allow aircraft to land and take off in the safest and most efficient manner possible. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 Airport Design provides detailed information on the requirements that have been set to allow this to occur in a uniform manner. This section explores these requirements.

Dimensional Criteria

The FAA developed a coding system, the Airport Reference Code (ARC), to relate airport design criteria to the physical and operational characteristics of the aircraft intended to operate at an

Aviation Forecasts 4-7 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

airport. The ARC is made up of two components. The first component, a letter, designates the aircraft approach category based on the approach speed of an aircraft. The second component, a Roman numeral, designates the design group, which is based on the wingspan. The FAA’s aircraft approach categories and airplane design groups are listed in Table 4-4.

Table 4-4 AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY AND AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP Approach Category Approach Speed Category A Speed less than 91 knots Category B Speed 91 knots to less than 121 knots Category C Speed 121 knots to less than 141 knots Category D Speed 141 knots to less than 166 knots Category E Speed 166 knots or more Design Group Wing Span Group I Less than 49 feet Group II 49 feet to less than 79 feet Group III 79 feet to less than 118 feet Group IV 118 feet to less than 171 feet Group V 171 feet to less than 214 feet Group VI 214 feet to less than 262 feet Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design

The primary runway at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, Runway 02-20, is designated as a D-IV runway, which indicates that it is designed for such aircraft as the DC-10-30. The crosswind runway at the Airport, Runway 15-33, is designated as a B-II runway. Runway 15-33 is designed to accommodate such aircraft as the Saab 340, the Embraer 120, and the Citations II, III, IV and V. Based on the largest aircraft anticipated to operate at the Airport in the ultimate planning horizon and the longest distances the aircraft may travel, it is recommended that the primary runway, Runway 02-20 continue to be designed to accommodate ARC D-IV aircraft. Aircraft in this category include the DC-10 and DC-8, and the MD-11. For the crosswind runway, Runway 15-33, it is recommended that it continue to accommodate ARC B-II aircraft and other small general aviation aircraft throughout the entire planning horizon. Representative aircraft in each ARC group are shown in Table 4-5.

Aviation Forecasts 4-8 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-5 AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE GROUPS OF AIRCRAFT ARC Group Representative Aircraft A-I Beech Baron B55/E55, Beech Bonanza, Cessna 150, Embraer 820, Learfan 2100 B-I Beech Baron 58/58P/58TC, Beech King B100/F90, Cessna Citation I, Cessna 402/404/414/421, Embraer 121/326,Searingen Merlin 3B, Swearingen Metro C-I Gates Learjet 24/25/54-55-56, Rockwell Sabre 75A D-I Gates Learjet 35A/36A E-I Lockheed SR-71 A-II Beech E18S, DHC-6-300 Twin Otter, Dornier DO 28D-2 B-II Beech King Air C90-1, Beech Super King Air B200, Cessna 441, Rockwell 840, Cessna Citation II/III, Embraer 110 C-II Canadair CRJ-200, Canadair CRJ-700, Grumman Gulfstream III, Embraer ERJ-145,Rockwell Sabre 80 D-II Grumman Gulfstream II/II-TT/IV A-III DHC-4 Caribou, DHC-7 Dash 7-100, DHC-8 Dash 8-300 B-III BAe 146 100/200, Fokker F-27-500/6000 C-III Airbus A320-100, Boeing 727-100/200, Boeing 737-100/200/300/400/500, Lockheed L-1011, MDC DC-9-10/15/20/30/40/50/80/82 D-III BAC III-500, BAC/Aerospatiale Concord, Tupolev TU-134 E-III Tupolev TU 144 A-IV Boeing YC-14, Lockheed 1649 B-IV Boeing C97, Lockheed 1049/749, Vickers Vanguard 950 C-IV Airbus A-300-600/B4, Airbus A-310-300, Boeing 757, Boeing 767-200/300, Lockheed L-1011- 100, MDC DC-10-10, MCD DC-8-10/20/30/40/50/62 D-IV Lockheed L-1011-250/500//500 ex. wing, MDC DC-10-30, MDC DC-8-61/63, Tupolev TU-154 C-V Boeing 747-SP D-V Boeing 747-100/200/300SR/400, Boeing 777-200/300 Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design

Airport runway design is based on the ARC and the lowest designated or planned approach visibility minimums for each runway. Visibility minimums refer to the minimum visibility specified for an approach landing or take-off, expressed in statute miles, or feet where Runway Visual Range (RVR) is reported. The FAA has established design criteria based on these factors. Table 4-6 shows the current dimensions for runway width, setbacks, Runway Safety Areas (RSA), Obstacle Free Zones (OFZ), and Object Free Areas (OFA) for the two runways at Chattanooga, as well as the required dimensions based on the ARC for each runway.

Aviation Forecasts 4-9 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-6 RUNWAY DIMENSIONAL CRITERIA Runway 2/20 Runway 15-33 ARC D-IV ARC B-II Dimension Existing Required Existing Required Runway width 150 150 150 75 Runway centerline to: Taxiway centerline 350 400 353 240 Taxilane centerline 745 400 353 240 Aircraft parking area 550 500 275 250 Runway Safety Area (RSA) Width 500 500 150 150 Length beyond runway end 1,000 1,000 300 300 Runway Obstacle Free Zone Width 400 400 400 400 Length beyond runway end 200 200 200 200 Runway Object Free Area (OFA) Width 800 800 500 500 Length beyond runway end 1,000 1,000 300 300 Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design

With the exception of the distance between the centerline of Runway 02-20 and the centerline of Taxiway A, which will be discussed in the section on taxiways, Runway 02-20 and 15-33 meet or exceed the design requirements for their respective ARCs in all respects.

The Object Free Area (OFA) of a runway is centered over a runway along its centerline. It is wider and longer than the runway - the specific dimensions being determined by the runway ARC. The OFA must be kept clear of all above ground objects protruding above the runway safety edge elevation, except, in most cases, objects that are required for air navigation, aircraft ground maneuvering purposes, and to taxi and hold aircraft within the OFA. It is encouraged but not required that the OFA be extended beyond the standard length to as long as feasible.

The Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) is a trapezoid-shaped area on the ground at each end of and on the centerline to each runway. Its purpose is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. This is achieved through the Airport’s control over the RPZ and through the Airport’s clearing and maintaining the clearance of all incompatible objects and activities within the area. The FAA encourages, but does not require, the Airport to own the property that contains the RPZ. The RPZ begins 200 feet beyond the area of the runway that is useable for takeoff or landing, unless special applications for declared distances are in place. The exact dimensions of each RPZ are determined based on the function of the ARC designation and the approach visibility minimum associated with that runway end.

There are two components to the RPZ, the Central Portion of the RPZ and the Controlled Activity Area. The Central Portion is a rectangular area centered on the runway centerline and the width is the same as the Object Free Area (OFA) of the runway. The Central Portion of the RPZ runs the entire length of the RPZ from one end to the other. The clearance requirements for the Central Portion of the RPZ are not as strict as the OFA, but it is generally recommended to keep all objects from the RPZ, especially the Central Portion. In particular, automobile parking facilities, while discouraged in the RPZ, may be permitted as long as they are not in the Central Portion.

Aviation Forecasts 4-10 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

The Controlled Activity Area of the RPZ is located outside of the Central Portion but within the RPZ. Essentially, it is all areas of the RPZ not in the Central Portion. While it does not have the strict clearance requirements of the Central Portion, it is still desirable that all objects be cleared from the Controlled Activity Area. However, activities and land uses permitted in the area must not create glare or smoke, attract wildlife, promote the gathering of people, interfere with the NAVAIDs, and must be located below the approach surface. Land uses not permitted in an RPZ include but are not limited to residences, places of public assembly (churches, schools, hospitals, office buildings, and shopping centers), and fuel storage facilities.

The FAA acknowledges that it is not always practical for an airport owner to acquire and control the land uses within an entire RPZ. In these cases, the land use standards are considered recommendations for the portion of the RPZ that is not controlled by the airport owner. However, it is the policy of the FAA to protect the public interest in the national airport system. To implement that policy, the FAA retains the right to study objects and activities to determine their effect on the safe and efficient use of the airport and the safety of people and property on the ground. If the FAA determines that the object or activity conflicts with an airport planning or design standard or recommendation, the FAA may issue an advisory recommendation in opposition to the presence of that object or activity near the public use airport. Table 4-7 shows the dimensions for the RPZ at each runway end at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport.

Table 4-7 RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE DIMENSIONS Runway Dimension 02 20 15 33 Length 2,500 2,500 1,000 1,000 Inner width 1,000 1,000 500 500 Outer width 1,750 1,750 700 700 Central Portion Width 800 800 800 800 Length beyond runway end 2,700 2,700 1,200 1,200 Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design

The Controlled Activity Areas to Runways 15 and 20 are clear of all unapproved objects. Eighteen buildings are either entirely or partially within the RPZ of Runway 02. The RPZ of the completed extension to Runway 33 contains 13 buildings either partially or wholly within the RPZ as well as a portion of a mobile home park, specifically 55 mobile home units. The land upon which the buildings and mobile home units are located does not belong to nor is it under the control of the Airport. It is recommended that the Airport acquire this property and remove the buildings and mobile homes when the land becomes available. It is not considered necessary at this time to acquire the land through eminent domain proceedings.

Length

The primary runway, Runway 02-20 is 7,401 feet in length. Runway 15-33 is 5,575 feet in length following the 575-foot extension to Runway 33 completed and operational in June of 2008. A number of factors determine the necessary length required of a runway. The height above sea level of the airport, the aircraft that are being used by the respective air carriers, and the range or distance between the runway and the destination runway are but a few of the factors that determine the required runway length.

Aviation Forecasts 4-11 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

The air carriers that service the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport are unlikely to change either the aircraft they use or the destinations they serve from Chattanooga unless an outside influence forces them to make these changes. The new factor at Chattanooga is the presence of the Low Cost Carriers (LCC). Not only are they bringing in equipment that was not previously used at the Airport, but also they are flying to destinations that are new for Chattanooga. The increased presence of LCCs at Chattanooga may create additional runway length requirements, based on the new equipment, the new destinations, or a combination of both. Table 4-8 lists a number of LCCs that are in operation today, their respective hubs (or in the case of Southwest Airlines “focus cities”) and the typical equipment that each carrier uses.

Table 4-8 LOW COST CARRIER HUBS AND AIRCRAFT FLEET Air Carrier Hubs or Focus Cities Typical Equipment Air Tran Fort Lauderdale, Fort Meyers, Orlando, Atlanta, Tampa, Chicago, Midway, Indianapolis, Baltimore, Las Vegas, Akron/Canton, Milwaukee 717-200, 737-700 Allegiant Las Vegas, Orlando/Sanford, Tampa/St Petersburg, Fort Lauderdale, Phoenix/Mesa, Bellingham MD-83, MD-87 Frontier Denver A318, A319, A320 Jet Blue New York JFK, Boston Logan, Fort Lauderdale A320, ERJ-190

Primaris Las Vegas, New York JFK, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago O'Hare, Atlanta B 767, B787, B757-200

Southwest Houston Hobby, Las Vegas, Baltimore, Chicago B 737-300, B737-500, Midway, Los Angeles, Oakland, Orlando, Phoenix B737-700 Spirit Fort Lauderdale, Detroit, Atlantic City A319-100, A321-200 Sun Country Minneapolis, Dallas-Fort Worth, 737-800 USA 3000 Ft. Meyers, Detroit, St. Petersburg, Chicago O'Hare A320-200

Virgin America San Francisco, San Diego, Las Vegas, New York JFK, Washington DCA, Seattle A319, A320 Source: Respective Airline Websites

Table 4-9 shows the distance in nautical miles (nmi) between Chattanooga and the hub or focus cities of several of the LCCs listed in Table 4-8.

Aviation Forecasts 4-12 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-9 DISTANCES BETWEEN CHATTANOOGA AND SELECTED DESTINATIONS Distance From Chattanooga (nmi) Destination 88 Atlanta GA 191 Louisville KY 218 Charlotte NC 234 Memphis TN 247 Cincinnati OH 273 Greensboro NC 314 Columbus OH 422 Chicago IL 427 Sanford/Orlando FL 458 St. Petersburg FL 458 Washington D.C. 566 Philadelphia PA 596 Ft. Lauderdale FL 604 Houston TX 614 Miami FL 698 Minneapolis MN 797 Boston MA 1,332 Phoenix AZ 1,461 Las Vegas NV 1,636 Los Angeles CA 1,815 Seattle WA 1,834 Bellingham WA Source: www.worldatlas.com

In June 2008, Allegiant Air operated three weekly flights to Tampa/St. Petersburg FL, five weekly flights to Orlando/Sanford FL, and two weekly flights to Fort Lauderdale FL. In September 2008, they operated two weekly flights to Tampa/St. Petersburg FL, and three weekly flights to Orlando/Sanford FL. Part of the decrease in service is due to the seasonal demand for travel to largely leisure destinations, but a portion is also due to the extremely high cost of fuel. Allegiant has been enjoying load factors between 85 and 95 percent since they began service to the Airport.

Allegiant services all of their flights with MD-80 aircraft. With five flights per week, this constitutes over 520 MD-80 annual operations. The FAA requires that an aircraft use the airport an average of at least 500 annual operations before the requirements of the specific aircraft can be considered in runway length considerations.

Allegiant has expressed interest in servicing its hub in Las Vegas, NV from Chattanooga. Las Vegas is approximately 1,500 nmi from Chattanooga. With the length of Runway 02-20 at 7,401 feet, an MD-83 aircraft - the predominant equipment in the Allegiant fleet would not be able to reach Las Vegas from Chattanooga with a full payload. The airline would have to reduce passengers and or baggage in order to reach this destination. Reducing the payload of a flight does not make good business sense for Allegiant or any other airline.

Table 4-10 shows the runway lengths required for a selection of aircraft for varying stage lengths. Aircraft take-off weight calculations done in preparation for the runway length calculations can be found in Appendix D. The aircraft were chosen, as they are representative of aircraft either that are used by airlines servicing Chattanooga today or that could reasonably be expected to within the planning period.

Aviation Forecasts 4-13 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-10 AIRCRAFT RUNWAY LENGTH REQUIREMENTS

500 nmi 1000 nmi 1500 nmi 2000 nmi Takeoff Standard Hot Takeoff Standard Hot Takeoff Standard Hot Takeoff Standard Hot Weight Day Day Weight Day Day Weight Day Day Weight Day Day A319 1 136,700 5,460 5,960 144,000 6,460 6,860 154,322 7,360 9,160 154,322 7,360 9,160 B737-800 151,000 5,960 6,260 157,000 6,360 6,760 164,000 7,360 7,660 171,000 8,560 9,060 B757-200 184,000 4,260 4,360 213,000 5,660 5,960 223,000 6,360 6,660 230,000 6,860 7,160 B 757-200PF 2 220,000 5,960 6,260 228,000 6,460 6,960 237,000 7,660 7,860 245,000 8,160 8,400 DC -9-32 3 102,000 6,660 7,060 108,000 9,060 9,460 108,000 9,060 9,460 108,000 9,060 9,460 MD-80-81 4 136,000 7,100 7,300 140,000 7,700 8,200 140,000 7,700 8,200 140,000 7,700 8,200 MD-80-82/88 5 139,000 6,300 6,900 149,500 7,800 8,500 149,500 7,800 8,500 149,500 7,800 8,500 MD-80-83 6 140,000 6,060 6,460 146,000 6,360 7,160 155,000 7,960 8,360 160,000 8,560 9,160 MD-80-87 7 127,000 5,160 5,260 134,000 5,960 6,260 140,000 6,560 6,860 140,000 6,560 6,860 MD-80-87 8 125,000 4,960 5,160 132,000 5,660 5,860 139,000 6,360 6,660 143,500 7,260 7,660 Source: Respective Aircraft Manufacturer’s Airport Planning Manuals 1 A319 aircraft cannot operate more than 1,500 nmi without taking payload penalties. 2 B757-500PF aircraft cannot operate more than 1,300 nmi off a 7,400 ft long runway without taking a payload penalty. 3 DC-9-32 aircraft cannot operate more than 980 nmi off a runway of any length without taking a payload penalty. 4 MD-80-81 aircraft cannot operate more than 800 nmi off a runway of any length without taking a payload penalty. 5 MD-80-82/88 aircraft cannot operate more than 1,200 nmi without taking a payload penalty 6 MD-83 aircraft cannot operate more than 1,800 nmi without taking a payload penalty. 7 MD-87 aircraft cannot operate more than 1,400 nmi off a runway of any length without taking a payload penalty. 8 With 1,130-gallon fuselage auxiliary fuel tanks.

Stage lengths exceed maximum payloads of the aircraft; payload penalties must be taken Runway length required is longer than the 9,000 ft long runway recommended in the 2000 Master Plan Stage length not possible at existing runway length of 7,401 ft., but possible if runway were 8,600 ft in length

Facility Requirements 4-14 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Runway lengths highlighted in pink are for those stage lengths for which the aircraft would have to take a payload penalty regardless of runway length due to the maximum payload-range for that aircraft. These aircraft are not designed to take their respective maximum payloads these distances. They include the A319 at distances greater than 1,500 nmi, the DC-9-32 at distances greater than 980 nmi, the MD-80-81 aircraft at distances greater than 800 nmi, the MD-80-83 aircraft at distances greater than 1,800 nmi, and the MD-80-87 at distances greater than 1,400 nmi. Of the aircraft listed, the only aircraft that can travel 1,500 nmi without penalty are the A319, the B757-200, the B757-200PF, and the MD-80-83. Allegiant Airlines operates exclusively MD-80 aircraft. Of these, the MD-80-83 aircraft currently makes up over 47 percent of its fleet.

Required runway lengths highlighted in yellow are stage lengths that are not currently possible from the existing 7,401-foot long primary runway at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. However, if Runway 02-20 were extended to 8,600 feet in length, the MD-80-83 aircraft could make the Las Vegas stage length at maximum payload. Required runway lengths highlighted in orange are longer than the 9,000-foot runway recommended in the 2000 Master Plan.

It is recommended that Runway 02-20 be lengthened to at least 8,600 feet in length. This would allow the MD-80-83 aircraft to reach Las Vegas on even a hot day without a load penalty. None of Allegiant’s current aircraft would be able to reach the Allegiant hub at Bellingham, WA with the possible exception of the MD-80-87 aircraft with the fuselage auxiliary fuel tanks, but it is unlikely that Allegiant would want to travel to Bellingham, WA within the planning period without first stopping at Las Vegas.

An airline might desire to fly directly to the west coast to either the San Francisco or Los Angeles markets within the planning period. Either of these cities could be reached from Chattanooga on an 8,600-foot long runway and using the appropriate aircraft, such as a B757-200 or B767-200.

The 2000 Master Plan recommended that Runway 02-20 be extended to 9,000 feet. This distance was based on the more demanding characteristics of a Boeing 727-200 aircraft. It was proposed as a freight aircraft. In order to operate 500 nmi out of Chattanooga, the payload would have to be reduced to 28,000 pounds from a maximum of 43,300 pounds, a reduction of the payload of 35 percent. In order to operate 1,000 nmi, the payload would have to be reduced to 20,000 pounds, a reduction of 54 percent from maximum.

Use of the B727-200 is being phased out. Production ceased in 1984, but the cost of operating the aircraft, as well as the necessity to have the aircraft modified with hush kits in order to comply with Stage Three Noise Reduction mandates, have caused most if not all domestic passenger airlines to phase them out of their respective fleets. In February of 2008, FedEx had the largest fleet of domestic B727-200 aircraft at 91. They are currently replacing these aircraft with second-hand retrofitted B757-200. These replacements are expected to be complete by 2016.

Declared Distances

In instances where an airport is operating under constrained conditions and it is impractical to provide runway safety areas, runway object free zones or runway protection zones in full compliance with the usual design standards, the FAA allows the use of an alternative airport design methodology called declared distances on runways. Declared distances are the distances that an airport declares available for the airplane’s takeoff run, takeoff distance, accelerate-stop distance, and landing distance requirements. They treat an airplane’s runway performance distances independently. The declared distances are:

Facility Requirements 4-15 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

 Take Off Run Available (TORA): the length of runway declared available and suitable to accelerate satisfactorily from brake release to lift-off, plus safety factors.  Take Off Distance Available (TODA): the TORA plus the length of any remaining runway or clearway beyond the far end of the TORA available to accelerate satisfactorily from brake release past lift-off to start take-off climb, plus safety factors.  Accelerate Stop Distance Available (ASDA): the length of runway plus stopway declared available and suitable to satisfactorily accelerate from brake release to the critical engine- failure speed (V1) and then decelerate to a stop, plus safety factors. The V1 is selected for each aircraft by the aircraft manufacturer and is the speed at which the engine failure is assumed to occur.  Landing Distance Available (LDA): the length of runway declared available and suitable to satisfactorily complete the approach, touchdown, and decelerate to a stop from the threshold, plus safety factors.

The application of each instance of a declared distance requires prior FAA approval. Approval is reflected on the FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for an Airport. Both Runway 02-20 and Runway 15-33 at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport have declared distances, and these have been reflected on the Airport’s approved ALP. The existing declared distances are indicated in Table 4-11.

Table 4-11 RUNWAY DECLARED DISTANCES Runway Declared Distances 02 20 15 33 Takeoff Run Available (TORA) 7,400 7,400 5,575 5,470 Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) 7,400 7,400 5,575 5,470 Accelerate-Stop Distance Available (ASDA) 7,201 7,400 5,575 5,470 Landing Distance Available (LDA) 7,201 7,400 5,470 5,000

Declared distances are typically not allowed by the FAA except in the cases of existing constrained airports where it is impracticable to provide Runway Safety Areas, Runway Protection Zones, or Runway Object Free Areas in accordance with FAA design standards. Because of the limited land area of the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, and the desire to lengthen the primary runway, it is unlikely that the declared distances will be eliminated

Width

Currently, both Runway 02-20 and Runway 15-33 are 150 feet wide. The required width of an ARC D-IV runway is 150 feet. The required width of an ARC B-II runway is 75 feet. Runway 02-20 meets the width requirements of an ARC D-IV runway and Runway 15-33 exceeds the width requirements of an ARC B-II runway. No change in the runway widths is required or recommended.

Pavement Design Strength

Runway pavement strength is as much a design determinant of which aircraft can use a runway as length. The aircraft’s gear type and configuration determine how the weight of the aircraft is distributed to the pavement and how the pavement will respond. The runways at Chattanooga

Facility Requirements 4-16 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Metropolitan Airport are rated in a manner similar to other air carrier airports in that they have a listed capacity for single-wheel, dual-wheel, and dual tandem-wheel pavement ratings as shown in Table 4-12.

Table 4-12 RUNWAY PAVEMENT DESIGN STRENGTH Dual Single- Dual- Tandem- Runway Units Wheel Wheel Wheel Runway 02-20 pounds 120,000 160,000 265,000 Runway 15-33 pounds 120,000 160,000 265,000

The aircraft that were previously considered as possible entrants into the Chattanooga market in the discussions of runway length have also been examined with respect to pavement strength. In addition, the B727-200 has been added. It was identified in the 2000 Master Plan as a potential air cargo aircraft at the Airport. However, the maximum loads of the B727-200 aircraft cannot be sustained by the existing runway pavements. Table 4-13 shows the maximum demands that these aircraft would make on runway pavement according to the respective aircraft manufacturer’s Airport Planning Manuals. It can be seen that the B727-200 and the B737-800 are capable of making demands on the runway pavement at Chattanooga in excess of the pavement’s designed capabilities.

Table 4-13 AIRCRAFT IMPACTS ON RUNWAY PAVEMENT Maximum Maximum Maximum Percentage Weight of Design Weight on Main Gear on Aircraft Weight Main Gear Pavement Type of Gear A 319 155,204 92% 142,800 Dual B 727-200 210,000 93% 195,200 Dual B 737-800 173,000 95% 164,200 Dual B 757-200 251,000 92% 231,600 Dual Tandem B757-200PF 256,000 91% 233,400 Dual Tandem DC-9-32 109,000 92% 100,700 Dual MD-80-83 161,000 95% 152,600 Dual MD-80-87 141,000 95% 133,600 Dual MD-80-87 150,500 95% 142,600 Dual Source: Respective Aircraft Manufacturer’s Airport Planning Manuals Weight exceeds the design weight of the runway pavement

This does not mean that neither of these aircraft can operate at the Airport. The B737-800 aircraft will likely operate as a passenger aircraft, if it is used at Chattanooga. This aircraft has a maximum range of approximately 4,000 nmi, but it is unlikely that it will operate to distances of more than 2,000 nmi from the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, as Seattle, Washington, one of the most distant domestic airports from Chattanooga is 1,834 nmi from Chattanooga. Thus, it can still operate out of Chattanooga at full payload but with less than the maximum fuel capacity. This will decrease the maximum weight of the aircraft without affecting the payload and thereby decrease the resultant impact on the runway pavement.

Facility Requirements 4-17 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

The B727-200 was identified as a potential cargo aircraft in the 2000 Master Plan. This aircraft does not currently operate from Chattanooga. It is being phased out of use by most airlines. FedEx currently has the largest fleet of B727-200 aircraft and they have committed to replacing them with B757-200 aircraft prior to 2016.

The pavement strength of both runways does not need to be altered. The maximum design weights of the aircraft currently using the Airport are well within the pavement design strengths. Of the aircraft that could potentially use the Airport that are not now doing so, only two have maximum design weights that exceed that of the pavement strength. The B727-200 is unlikely to be introduced to the Airport as it is being phased out of service. If the B737-800 comes to the Airport, it will likely be as a passenger aircraft. It is unlikely that it will operate to distances of more than 2,000 nmi from the Chattanooga. As the aircraft has a maximum range of 4,000 nmi, it can easily reduce the amount of fuel onboard thereby reducing its maximum weight without reducing the payload.

Designation

Runway designation markings are provided on each end of a runway and are used by pilots to identify landing facilities. A runway designation identifies a runway according to compass bearing and consists of a number and, on parallel runways, is supplemented with a letter. The designation number represents the whole number nearest the compass bearing when viewed from the direction of approach. For example, where the compass bearing is 183-degrees, the runway designation would be 18, and for a compass bearing of 87 degrees, the runway designation would be 9. Compass bearings are affected by the magnetic field of the earth and by magnetic objects in the vicinity. The effect of magnetic objects in the vicinity is called “deviation”. The effect of the earth's magnetic field is called “variation”. Compass bearings corrected for nearby objects (deviation) are “magnetic” directions. Correcting for the Earth's magnetic field (variation) gives us “true” direction. When on land, “variation” is referred to as “magnetic declination” or sometimes “deviation.”

The compass bearing is determined by correcting the runway’s true bearing for magnetic declination. To accomplish this modification, westerly magnetic declination values are added to a runway’s true bearing, while easterly magnetic declination values are subtracted. The magnetic declination for the Airport is 3º 54’ west. Since the magnetic declination is westerly, the compass bearings associated with the runways at the Airport are determined by adding the declination value to the true bearing values. The true bearing of Runway 02-20 is 16º 42’ 11”. Therefore, the compass bearing of Runway 02-20 is 20º 36’ 11” and the designation of the Runway is correct. The variation or magnetic declination changes gradually over time. It is anticipated, based on the historic rate of change of the magnetic declination, that Runway 02-20 should be changed to Runway 3-21 around the year 2061.

The true bearing of Runway 15-33 is 145º 28’ 25” and the magnetic declination of the Airport is 3º 54’ 00” west. Therefore, the compass bearing of Runway 15-33 is 145º 22’ 25” and the heading of the runway is correct. Based on the historic rate of change of the magnetic declination, Runway 15-33 should be changed to Runway 16-34 around the year 2075 as shown in Table 4-14.

Facility Requirements 4-18 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-14 RUNWAY DESIGNATIONS Data Airport declination 3º 54’ 00” W Rate of declination change per year 0º 5’ 00” W

Runway 02-20 True bearing 16º 42’ 11.1937” Compass bearing 20º 36’ 11.1937” Approximate years to designation change 53

Runway 15-33 True bearing 145º 28’ 25.2729” Compass bearing 149º 22’ 25.2729” Approximate years to designation change 67 Source: National Geodetic Survey National Geophysical Data Center

4.3.3 Taxiway Requirements

The taxiways at an airport are another important component of the airfield system upon which aircraft operate. Taxiways are the means by which aircraft travel to and from the runways to the aprons. They must be configured to allow aircraft to maneuver in the safest and most efficient manner possible. The requirements for taxiways have been determined in much the same way that runways have in that they are grouped by the type of aircraft that use them. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 Airport Design provides detailed information on taxiways. This section explores these requirements.

Dimensional Criteria

Runway 02-20, an ARC D-IV runway has three partial parallel taxiways associated with it, Taxiway A, Taxiway B and Taxiway H. Runway 15-33, an ARC B-II runway has a full parallel taxiway associated with it, Taxiway D. Taxiways that service particular runways are sized for same ARC group of aircraft as the associated runway. Table 4-15 shows the dimensional criteria required for Taxiways A, B, H and D based on their respective ARC groupings and the actual dimensions of each taxiway.

Facility Requirements 4-19 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-15 TAXIWAY DIMENSIONAL CRITERIA Taxiway Taxiway ARC D-IV ARC B-II Dimension Required A B H Required D Taxiway width 75 60 75 75 35 60 Taxiway centerline to: Runway centerline 400 350 745 400 240 350 Taxiway centerline 267 395 350 N/A 105 N/A Fixed or moveable object 160 175 160 160 65.5 112 Taxiway Object Free Area width 259 259 259 259 131 131 Taxiway Safety Area width 171 125 171 171 79 79 Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design

With the exception of Taxiway A, each of the taxiways shown in Table 4-15 meet the dimensional requirements. Taxiway A runs parallel to and east of Runway 02 and is neither wide enough nor far enough removed from the centerline of Runway 02 to meet the requirements of a taxiway parallel to an ARC D-IV runway. Neither is its Safety Area wide enough. These deficiencies must be corrected in order to bring the taxiway and Runway 02-20 into compliance with FAA standards. The deficiencies were reported in the 2000 Master Plan and the Airport included the required modifications to Taxiway A into their Capital Improvement Plan. The relocation and widening of Taxiway A is currently under construction. It will be widened to 75 feet, relocated 50 feet to the east, and the Safety Area will be widened when complete. Even with the realignment of Taxiway A, Taxiway B will still be of sufficient distance from Taxiway A to meet the requirements of an ARC D-IV taxiway.

Taxiway B runs parallel to and east of Runway 02-20 and Taxiway A. It is 75 feet wide and its centerline is 395 feet from the centerline of Taxiway A. Taxiway B meets the requirements of an ARC D-IV taxiway.

Taxiway H runs parallel to and west of Runway 02. It is 75 feet wide and its centerline is 400 feet from the centerline of Runway 02. Taxiway H also meets the requirements of an ARC D-IV taxiway.

Taxiway D is a full-length parallel taxiway to Runway 15-33. It is 60 feet wide and its centerline is 350 feet from the centerline of Runway 15-33. It exceeds the requirements of an ARC B-II taxiway.

Exits

Exit taxiways permit aircraft to exit and often enter the runway from the parallel or connecting taxiways. The exit taxiways need to be placed to allow aircraft to clear a runway as quickly and efficiently as possible. The type of exit, the separation distances between the exit taxiways, the configuration of the taxiways, as well as the efficiency of the taxiways all contribute to the ability of aircraft to clear the runway. The exit taxiways at Chattanooga are sufficient to meet the criteria placed upon them.

Facility Requirements 4-20 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

4.3.4 Electronic, Visual, and Satellite Aids to Navigation

Navigational Aids (NAVAIDs) consist of equipment that help pilots locate and land at an airport and provide horizontal or a combination of horizontal and vertical guidance information. The equipment can be electronic as in the case of Instrument Landing Systems (ILS), visual as with runway lights, or satellite-based as with the Global Positioning System (GPS) technology.

Both runways at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport have appropriate navigational aids that are properly sited and in working condition. Both ends of Runway 02-20 have ILS systems that use glide slope, approach lighting systems, and localizers. Runway 20 handles the majority of all arrivals at approximately 60 percent. It has both a Category I and a Category II precision instrument approach. Runway 02 has one Category I precision instrument approach. These three approaches have more than 99 percent reliability.

Additional instrument approaches include GPS approaches on Runway 20, Runway 15, and Runway 33. In addition, Runway 33 has a Very-high Frequency Omni-directional Range (VOR) non-precision approach. The Airport is also equipped with an Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-8) as shown in Table 4-16.

Table 4-16 ELECTRONIC AND SATELLITE AIDS TO NAVIGATION Runway 02 20 15 33 Approach Precision Precision Non-precision Non-precision Type ILS CAT I ILS CAT I RNAV (GPS) RNAV (GPS) Slope 3.00º 3.00º 3.06º 3.05º

Approach Non-precision Precision Non-precision Type RNAV (GPS) ILS CAT II VOR Slope 3.00º 3.00º 3.43º

Approach Non-precision Type RNAV (GPS) Slope 3.00º

Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-8)

Visual aids enhance the pilot’s visual information when visibility is poor and at night. It is essential to provide visual aids that will be as meaningful to a pilot as possible. These aids can provide pilots information based on their horizontal and vertical position by providing data regarding the aircraft’s alignment, height, distance, rotation, and information concerning the rate of descent and the rate of closure with the desired path. The visual aids at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport include runway lighting, rotating beacon, threshold lights, Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI), and Precision Approach Path and Indicator lights (PAPI). All of the existing visual aids are in serviceable condition and need only routine maintenance. The visual aids are shown in Table 4-17.

Facility Requirements 4-21 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-17 VISUAL AIDS TO NAVIGATION Runway Airport 02 20 15 33 Rotating Beacon HIRL HIRL MIRL MIRL Lighted Wind Cone MALSR-CTAF ALSF2 4-light PAPI 4-light PAPI (3.00º GP) (3.00º GP) Segment Circle Centerline Centerline Lights Lights 4-box VASI Touchdown (3.00º GP) Zone Lights RVR RVR Equipment Equipment

It is recommended that the VASI on Runway 02 be replaced with a 4-light PAPI. Runway 20 should be equipped with a 4-light PAPI as well. PAPIs are similar to VASIs but they guide pilots with a narrower beam of light. Combined with lights extra to the VASI, the PAPI warns the pilots earlier when they begin to drift from the desired glide slope, thus offering a more precise landing.

4.4 COMMERCIAL SERVICE PASSENGER TERMINAL COMPLEX

The commercial-service passenger terminal complex consists of the terminal, and associated apron and curbfronts. The requirements for these facilities are based on the annual, daily, and peak period enplanements and operations. The following principal areas are presented in this section and the details of these can be found in Appendix E:

 Gates or aircraft parking positions  Commercial service passenger terminal building  Curbfronts  Key commercial service passenger terminal area trigger points

4.4.1 Gates

Gates or aircraft parking positions located on the apron surrounding the commercial passenger terminal concourse are currently accessed either by passengers with the use of a passenger boarding bridge or by using stairs to access the apron. The six gates at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport are currently shared. Specifically, in some cases two airlines will share a single gate by arrangement of the Airport rather than either airline having exclusive use of the gate. The Airport instituted the arrangement when there were not enough gates to serve each airline exclusively. The numbers of gates as well as Remain Overnight (RON) positions are shown in Table 4-18.

Facility Requirements 4-22 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-18 EXISTING COMMERCIAL SERVICE AIRCRAFT PARKING POSITIONS Existing Gates with bridges 3 Gates without bridges 3 Square feet of commercial service aircraft parking 34,415 Lineal feet of terminal frontage (50 feet from face of terminal) 770 RON aircraft parking positions 3

Several methodologies can be used to determine the number of gates needed in the future. Each of the following paragraphs briefly explains a methodology, some of the basic assumptions of the methodology, and the outcome that particular methodology might yield for the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport.

The enplanements per gate methodology shown in Table 4-19 divides the annual enplaned passengers for 2007 by the total number of gates available in that year for the number of enplaned passengers per gate. The projected number of annual enplaned passengers is then divided by the 2007 enplaned passengers per gate to arrive at the number of required gates per planning year. This method assumes that the usage and utilization of the gates in 2007 was acceptable and will remain constant throughout the planning period. This method would result in nine gates in the year 2027.

Table 4-19 ENPLANEMENTS PER GATE METHODOLOGY 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Annual Enplaned Passengers 296,083 306,500 352,500 401,800 457,900 Enplaned passengers per gate 49,347 49,347 49,347 49,347 9,347 Gates 6678 9

The number of departures per gate methodology divides the annual commercial passenger operations for 2007 by two to determine the number of departures. The result is divided by the six gates available in 2007. The projected number of annual commercial passenger operations for each year is then divided by two and then by the number of departures per gate for 2007 to determine the number of required gates for each of the planning years. This approach assumes that the 2007 usage and utilization of the gates will remain constant over the planning period. This method as shown in Table 4-20 would result in seven gates in 2027.

Table 4-20 DEPARTURES PER GATE METHODOLOGY 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Annual commercial passenger aircraft departures 10,135 10,450 10,800 11,150 12,350 Annual departures per gate 1,689 1,689 1,689 1,689 1,689 Gates 6 6 6 7 7

Facility Requirements 4-23 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

The percent increase in annual operations method assumes that the number of gates required will increase at the same rate as annual commercial passenger operations through the year 2027. This method takes the percentage increase in annual commercial operations between each set of planning years and assumes that the number of gates will increase at the same percentage. This method does not take into account changes in the fleet mix over the planning period. This method would result in seven gates in the year 2027 as shown in Table 4-21.

Table 4-21 INCREASE IN GATES BASED ON PERCENT OF INCREASE IN ANNUAL OPERATIONS 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Annual commercial passenger operations 20,270 20,900 21,600 22,300 24,700 Percentage increase in operations -3.7% 3.1% 3.3% 3.2% 10.8% Gates 66 6 6 7

The gates based on projected schedules takes the airline schedule of September 2008 and projects forward the airline schedule based on knowledge of the aviation industry and the aircraft that each airline is flying today, as well as the aircraft orders that each airline has placed. With this knowledge, schedules were developed for each planning year. These can be found in Appendix F. While not predictions of actual flight schedules, the hypothetical schedules are examples of how airlines might arrange their flights to maximize the passenger feed through their respective hubs and protect their market from competing carriers. Based on these schedules, the number of gates required would be as shown in Table 4-22.

Table 4-22 GATES BASED ON PROJECTED SCHEDULES 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Gates based on projected schedule 6 7 7 8 8

As projected, the schedules also show that regardless of whether or not the gates are operated as common-use or exclusive use, the same number of gates will be needed in each of the planning years. Exclusive-use refers to operations where each gate is used exclusively by one airline. This usually results in the gate not being used as often as it could be throughout the day, which could result in more gates than necessary being built. Common-use refers to operations where any airline could use any open gate at any time. This could result in all gates being fully occupied several times throughout each day. While this is good gate utilization, it does not allow for weather delays and other non-scheduled events, which could strand one or more aircraft at the gates. If the gates were to become truly common-use, theoretically, the number of gates required throughout the planning period could be reduced, but weather delays and other unscheduled delays as well as sudden or rapid growth at the Airport might not be easily accommodated. Ideally, it is recommended that one additional gate position above the peak hour demand be provided to allow a small amount of flexibility in scheduling as well as provide for weather delays and for a small amount of unexpected growth. The resulting and recommended number of gates for each planning period is shown in Table 4-23.

Facility Requirements 4-24 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-23 RECOMMENDED NUMBER OF GATES 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Number of gate positions 6 8 8 9 9

The projected airline schedules are also useful in determining the projected aircraft fleet mix for each planning period. Each of the aircraft within the fleet mix belongs to a design group developed by the FAA that is based on the wingspan of each aircraft. The fleet mix and the respective aircraft planning groups for each planning period are shown in Table 4-24.

Table 4-24 AIRCRAFT FLEET MIX PER PLANNING PERIOD BASED ON PROJECTED SCHEDULES Aircraft Design Group 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Group I 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Group II AT7 2.9% 3.9% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% CRJ 44.1% 56.2% 63.3% 56.3% 52.6% CR7 0.0% 8.5% 7.7% 10.5% 14.2% ERD 4.1% 9.2% 8.3% 7.4% 7.4% ER3 14.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ER4 15.3% 13.1% 11.8% 20.0% 20.0% SF3 8.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 88.8% 90.8% 94.7% 94.2% 94.2% Group III DH8 7.1% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% MD-80 4.1% 4.6% 5.3% 5.8% 5.8% 11.2% 9.2% 5.3% 5.8% 5.8%

Group IV 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Group V 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Group VI 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

These percentages together with the number of recommended gates determines the number of gates required for each design group as well as the area required to accommodate these aircraft parking positions or gates, assuming that the gates are operated as common-use gates. If the gates were operated as exclusive-use gates, each airline using Group III aircraft equipment would have to have a gate that could accommodate a Group III aircraft. If the gates are common-use and the schedules permit, only one Group III aircraft gate is projected to be required. These are shown in Table 4-25.

Facility Requirements 4-25 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-25 FORECAST OF REQUIRED GATE BY AIRCRAFT DESIGN GROUP 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Group I gates 0 0 0 0 0 Group II gates 5 7 7 8 8 Group III gates 1 1 1 1 1 Group IV gates 0 0 0 0 0 Group V gates 0 0 0 0 0 Group VI gates 0 0 0 0 0 Total number of gates 6 8 8 9 9

For planning purposes, the width of a Group II gate would be the largest wingspan allowed within the group, 78.9 feet, plus a wingspan clearance of approximately 7.5 feet on each side. The longest aircraft within Aircraft Design Group II that is likely to use the Airport is the Embraer 145 at 98 feet in length. Typically, for a Group II aircraft, at least 30 feet would be allowed between the nose of the aircraft and the terminal and approximately 10 feet would be allowed behind the aircraft. This would equate to an area of approximately 93.9 feet wide by 138 feet long or approximately 12,960 square feet or 1,440 square yards per Group II gate.

Group III gates would be based on an aircraft wingspan up to but not including 118 feet. The wing clearance on each side would be approximately 7.5 feet. The longest aircraft in Group III likely to use the Airport would be an Airbus A320 at 123.3 feet in length. With a 30-foot clearance between the nose of the aircraft and a 10-foot clearance behind the aircraft, the dimensions of the area occupied by the aircraft would equal approximately 163.3 feet long by 132.9 feet wide or approximately 21,700 square feet or 2,410 square yards. Taken together, the apron area for gates required per planning period would be as shown in Table 4-26.

Table 4-26 GATE APRON AREA AND TERMINAL FRONTAGE PER PLANNING PERIOD GATE POSITIONS 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Number of gates 6 8 8 9 9 Group II gates 5 7 7 8 8 Group III gates 1 1 1 1 1

Area per Group II gate (square yards) 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 Area per Group III gate (square yards 2,410 2,410 2,410 2,410 2,410 Total gate area (square yards) 9,290 11,250 12,430 13,460 13,460

Terminal frontage (lineal feet) 590 790 790 870 870

The terminal frontage as shown in Table 4-26 is the distance required by the aircraft around the terminal building approximately 50 feet out from the terminal. This is the approximate distance of the wingspans and the wingtip clearances.

In addition to the gates that are use during the day, quite often, airlines schedule aircraft to remain overnight at the Airport in excess of the number of gates that the airline uses during the day. This is done in order to have the aircraft staged to depart with the first bank of departing flights in the morning. The airlines would prefer to have these RON aircraft remain at the gate from which they will depart in the morning. However, if they have more aircraft remaining overnight the ground than

Facility Requirements 4-26 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

there are gates at the terminal, the aircraft are parked elsewhere overnight, usually on the apron, and towed to the gate once the aircraft parked at the gate overnight has departed. The projected schedules do not show that any additional RON gates in addition to the three existing will be required during the planning period.

4.4.2 Commercial Service Passenger Terminal Building

The existing commercial service passenger terminal was completed in 1992. The allocation of spaces within the terminal has been determined based on floor plans of the facility. The existing terminal spaces have been compared to the areas that have been forecast to be required based on the forecast of annual enplanements and the peak period forecasts. This section looks specifically at the following areas, which are covered in more detail in Appendix E:

 Total square foot area  Departure lounges  Passenger check-in facilities  Baggage claim  Passenger security screening checkpoint  Federal Inspection Services facilities

Total Square Foot Area

The total square foot area that will be required to accommodate the forecast number of passengers has been calculated for each of the planning periods using industry standards and recognized principles. A summary of the calculations is shown in Table 4-27. The numbers shown in the column labeled “Existing” indicate the area of the particular function in the existing terminal. The corresponding number under each of the planning years is the calculated area that would be required based on the number of passengers anticipated to be processed in that year based on the approved Aviation Forecasts.

Facility Requirements 4-27 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-27 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND FORECAST COMMERCIAL SERVICE TERMINAL AREAS Projected Functional Areas in Square Feet Existing 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Airline Total area of check-in counters and kiosks-exclusive use 2,490 1,600 2,000 2,900 2,600 2,800 Area of check-in queue - exclusive use 3,000 1,310 1,800 2,700 2,500 2,700 Airline office area 3,260 1,100 1,200 1,600 1,900 2,000 Airline operational areas 2,600 2,700 2,800 3,700 4,500 4,700 Baggage make-up 8,370 2,700 2,800 3,700 4,500 4,700 Total area of departure lounges or holdrooms 10,860 9,850 13,020 13,020 15,320 15,320 Inbound baggage input area 5,170 2,600 2,800 3,600 4,400 4,600 Total area of baggage claim devices 1,110 880 940 1,240 1,480 1,560 Baggage claim retrieval area 3,960 1,120 1,200 1,570 1,890 1,990 Baggage service offices 0 470 370 540 560 690 Subtotal Airline Functional Areas 40,820 24,330 28,930 34,570 39,650 41,060 Passenger Security Screening Total area of security screening check point station(s) 670 1,100 1,100 1,600 1,600 1,600 Area of security screening check point queue 390 1,200 1,200 1,800 1,800 1,800 Total area of deplaneing corridor 370 300 300 300 300 300 Total area of post security screening check point 200 400 400 600 600 600 Subtotal Passenger Screening Checkpoint 1,630 3,000 3,000 4,300 4,300 4,300 Baggage Security Screening Area of checked baggage ETD screening 630 0 0 0 0 0 Area of manual EDS checked baggage screening 0 840 1,320 1,680 0 0 Area of in-line EDS checked baggage screening 0 0 0 0 7,100 8,070 TSA offices and support space 500 1,000 1,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 Subtotal Security 1,130 1,840 2,320 3,180 12,900 9,570 Terminal Amenity Areas Restaurant 2,140 4,700 4,800 5,600 6,400 7,200 Bar 670 1,410 1,440 1,680 1,920 2,160 Restaurant and bar support areas 3,600 1,530 1,560 1,820 2,080 2,340 News gifts and sundries 550 890 920 1,060 1,210 1,370 Rental car counters and offices 1,960 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 Rental car queue 460 200 200 200 200 200 Other terminal amenities 1,670 2,070 2,150 2,470 2,810 3,210 Subtotal Terminal Amenities 11,320 12,050 12,320 14,080 15,870 17,730 Public Areas Non-secure public restrooms 1,800 1,300 1,100 1,700 1,700 2,100 Secure public restrooms 1,220 800 800 1,000 1,000 1,000 Administrative offices and conference rooms 6,240 6,400 6,600 7,800 9,000 10,200 Waiting and seating 1,460 2,200 2,300 3,000 3,600 3,800 Public circulation including lobby and entrance 33,460 18,200 20,100 24,400 30,800 31,400 Subtotal Public Areas 44,180 28,900 30,900 37,900 46,100 48,500 Non-Public Areas Unassigned or unknown spaces 12,760 1,300 1,500 1,800 2,300 2,300 Maintenance, storage and janitorial 7,470 1,330 1,380 1,590 1,810 2,060 Circulation 240 870 950 1,120 1,360 1,440 Mechanical 4,460 10,600 11,700 14,100 18,000 18,400 Building structure 6,050 4,100 4,500 5,400 6,900 7,100 Subtotal Non-Public Areas 30,980 18,200 20,030 24,010 30,370 31,300 Total Building Area 130,060 88,320 97,500 118,040 149,190 152,460

Facility Requirements 4-28 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

It can be seen that the total square foot area of the terminal as a whole is more than sufficient to accommodate the projected passenger traffic through the year 2017. By the time the traffic projected to occur in 2022 occurs, an additional 19,130 square feet are projected to be required. By the time that the traffic projected to occur in 2027 happens, an additional 22,400 square feet above that available today is projected to be required. The space currently available however may not be located where it is needed. The security facilities are currently undersized and additional departure lounges may be required before 2012. Much of the additional area is found in some of the generous circulation spaces and the first floor of the concourse. Therefore, while there appears to be additional space, some of this area may not be readily available to increase the sizes of those facilities that are reaching their capacity.

Departure Lounges

There are currently six departure lounges at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. These are shared in the same manner as the aircraft gates so that some of the airlines are currently sharing gates and departure lounges. The capacity of each of the existing individual departure lounges is shown in Table 4-28.

Table 4-28 EXISTING DEPARTURE LOUNGE CAPACITY Airline Counter Total and Seating Departure Square Aisle Area Peak Hour Aircraft Lounge Feet (SF) (SF) (SF) Passengers Seats Gate 1 1,950 470 1,480 102 127 Gate 2 1,950 470 1,480 102 127 Gate 3 1,740 470 640 44 55 Gate 4 1,740 470 1,270 87 109 Gate 5 1,740 346 700 48 60 Gate 6 1,740 540 1,200 83 103 Total area 10,860 2,765 6,770 466 582

In September of 2008, there were four flights during the peak hour. 50-seat aircraft served all these flights. While there are currently individual gates that can accommodate aircraft with capacity up to 127 seats, there is no one individual departure lounge that can accommodate the 150-seat aircraft operated by Allegiant. This aircraft is accommodated because most of the departure lounges are relatively open and passengers spill over into adjacent departure lounges. Currently Allegiant operates during periods of the day when only one or two other smaller aircraft are also enplaning or deplaning. This may not always be so. It is possible in the future, especially when there are as many as seven or more aircraft at the gates simultaneously when the MD-80 aircraft passengers combined with those of the smaller aircraft will overwhelmed the area available in the combined departure lounge area.

A comparison of Table 4-28 and Table 4-29 shows that the total area of existing departure lounges is 10,860 square feet and that in 2012 through 2027, 4,460 additional square feet will be required. Table 4-29 shows the number of departures lounges recommended for each of the planning years, their respective seating area sizes, and the total area of all of the departure lounges. There will be a requirement for three additional departure lounges by 2022.

Facility Requirements 4-29 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-29 FORECAST OF DEPARTURE LOUNGES DEPARTURE LOUNGES 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Number of departures lounges required 6 8 8 9 9 Number of departure lounges required per aircraft size 50 seat aircraft 5 6 6 6 6 80 seat aircraft 0 1 1 1 1 110 seat aircraft 0 0 0 1 1 160 seat aircraft 1 1 1 1 1 Departure lounge area in square feet 50-seat aircraft 4,000 4,800 4,800 4,800 4,800 80-seat aircraft 0 1,270 1,270 1,270 1,270 110 seat aircraft 0 0 0 1,750 1,750 160-seat aircraft 2,550 2,550 2,550 2,550 2,550 Deplaning corridors 1,800 2,400 2,400 2,700 2,700 Airline operational area at departure lounges 1,500 2,000 2,000 2,250 2,250 Total area of departure lounges 9,850 13,020 13,020 15,320 15,320

Passenger Check-In Facilities

There are currently 25 conventional check-in counters and six kiosks in use at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport distributed between the five airlines. Currently, each of these airlines operates from their own exclusive check-in facilities with their individual branding on the counters, kiosks and the walls behind the check-in area. Increasingly, technology will be assisting the check-in process in such areas as printing the boarding pass at home and the increased use of check-in kiosks, which decrease the time passengers spend checking-in. It is predicted that the requirements for check-in facilities will decrease over the planning period as fewer passengers use the Airport facilities and those that do will spend less time in the process. However, there will continue to be a need for the checking of baggage. Nevertheless, even that could be decreased with the printing of the baggage label at home and the possibility of remote checking of bags.

The forecast of check-in facilities shown in Table 4-30 does not account for significant technologies in the baggage handling process, but it does account for increased use of the check-in technologies over the planning period. The forecast also shows two methodologies for the distribution of airlines across the check-in facilities. The first would be to use Common-Use Terminal Equipment (CUTE) which would allow any airline to use any check-in desk for the checking in of a flight. Along with CUTE, there is also Common-Use Self Service (CUSS) equipment, which allows the passenger to use any kiosk to check-in, not just those that belong to the airline they are using that day. These technologies exist and are operational today. Ultimately, it allows all of the check-in facilities to be in use during the peak periods, significantly reducing the overall space requirements for check-in facilities.

The second methodology is that which is used at most U.S. airports today, where each airline has their own specific check-in facilities, which are used exclusively by them. This is called exclusive- use. The airlines in general prefer these types of facilities as they provide more opportunity for them to show their brand on the counters, kiosks and back wall. They also feel that it prevents competitors from gaining access to their computer systems, although firewalls have been successfully built-into the CUTE and CUSS for quite a while now. The space requirements for both methodologies are shown in Table 4-30.

Facility Requirements 4-30 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-30 FORECAST OF CHECK-IN POSITIONS 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Common-use check-in facilities Number of conventional counters 6 6 8 5 5 Number of kiosks 4 6 9 7 9 Total number of positions 10 12 17 12 14

Square foot area of common-use positions 780 960 1,330 1,020 1,110 Square foot area of queue 670 870 1,240 980 1,100 Total square foot area of common-use check-in facilities 1,450 1,830 2,570 2,000 2,210

Exclusive-use check-in facilities Number of conventional counters 15 16 19 13 12 Number of kiosks 5 10 17 18 22 Total number of positions 20 26 36 31 34

Square foot area of exclusive-use positions 1,620 2,040 2,930 2,560 2,780 Square foot area of queue 1,310 1,770 2,660 2,460 2,750 Total square foot area of exclusive-use check-in 2,930 3,810 5,590 5,020 5,530

While common-use facilities would be more space efficient, the cost of the CUTE and CUSS equipment must also be considered and these systems are most efficient when used throughout the terminal such as in the departure lounges and baggage make-up areas. For these reasons and because of the general resistance of the airlines to common-use facilities, the exclusive-use facilities have been brought forward into the total terminal summary. The exclusive-use check-in facilities are forecast to require 12 conventional check-in counters by the year 2027, down from the existing 25. The number of kiosks is expected to increase from the six of today to approximately 22. The area that is currently used for check-in today measures approximately 2,490 square feet. This includes the check-in desks, the kiosks, area behind the desks, the take-away belt, and approximately five feet in front of the check-in counter. It does not include the passenger queuing area in front of the check-in counters. It is calculated that approximately 1,620 square feet of exclusive-use facilities are needed in 2007. This is approximately 870 square feet less than is used today. There is additional area in the check-in hall that is not used today, including the area that is currently being used for checked baggage security screening. It is expected that with the exclusive-use facilities, the required check-in area would need to be expanded to approximately 2,780 square feet by 2027.

The existing passenger check-in queuing area for all airlines measures approximately 3,000 square feet. It is expected that with the exclusive use check-in facilities, the queue area will need to be approximately 1,770 square feet in 2012 and 2,750 square feet in 2027. The 3,000 square feet should be able to accommodate the check-in queue through the planning period.

Together with the check-in facilities, the existing 5,490 square feet used for check-in today will need to be expanded by approximately the year 2017, if exclusive-use facilities are used. By 2027, a total of 5,530 square feet is anticipated to be needed. If before 2017, common-use terminal equipment were introduced to the terminal, only a total of approximately 2,210 square feet are forecast to be required in 2027.

Facility Requirements 4-31 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Baggage Claim

The existing baggage claim area has two flatbed baggage-claim devices, each measuring approximately 100 feet in presentation length. This is the length that is visible to the passenger and from which they can retrieve their baggage. The total existing baggage claim area measures a little over 5,000 square feet. Table 4-31 shows the forecast of baggage claim facilities through the planning period.

Table 4-31 FORECAST OF BAGGAGE CLAIM FACILITIES 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Number of baggage claim devices required 2 2 2 3 3 Total baggage claim frontage required (lineal feet) 160 170 220 270 280 Total baggage claim area (square feet) 2,000 2,140 2,810 3,370 3,550

In 2012, approximately 170 lineal feet of presentation is calculated to be required. With the existing length of 200 lineal feet, it is determined that this will be sufficient. However, by 2017, a third baggage claim device may be required and it will definitely be needed by 2022 based on the approved Aviation Forecasts. It is recommended that a baggage claim device of approximately 100 lineal feet in presentation length be added. The combined presentation length of 300 lineal feet should be able to accommodate the expected traffic through the remainder of the planning years.

While the existing baggage claim area technically has enough area to house another baggage claim device, the area is not sufficiently long enough in the direction in which the next logical placement of another device would be located. Depending on the configuration of the next device, approximately an additional 75 lineal feet of building or three structural bays would need to be added to accommodate the third claim device.

Passenger Security Screening Checkpoint

There is currently one passenger security screening checkpoint at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport with one security position. The entire security-screening checkpoint including the queue, the deplaning corridor and the area after the checkpoint where passengers reassemble their clothes and possessions occupies approximately 1,630 square feet. However, the queue spills over for periods during extraordinary peak periods such as Easter, Thanksgiving, and special events.

Based on the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) goal of an average processing rate of one passenger every 18 seconds, the Airport needs two security positions today. Based on the TSA’s Security Checkpoint Layout Design/Reconfiguration Guide, the typical passenger security- screening checkpoint for each of the planning periods would occupy the area shown in Table 4-32.

Facility Requirements 4-32 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-32 FORECAST OF PASSENGER SCREENING SECURITY CHECKPOINT FACILITIES 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Number of security positions required 2 2 3 3 3 Total area of passenger security screening check point (square feet) 1,060 1,060 1,590 1,590 1,590 Total area security queuing (square feet) 1,200 1,200 1,800 1,800 1,800 Area post security (square feet) 400 400 600 600 600 Minimum area deplaneing corridor (square feet) 290 290 290 290 290 Total passenger security screening check point area (square feet) 2,950 2,950 4,280 4,280 4,280

Two positions would require 2,950 square feet and three positions would require a minimum of 4,280 square feet, if TSA standards were used. The three security lanes should accommodate the expected peak 20-minute passengers through 2027.

Federal Inspection Services Facilities

An airline has approached the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport with the desire to initiate international flights that would require limited Federal Inspection Services (FIS) for inbound flights. FIS agencies, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the United States Customs Service (USCS), the Public Health Services (PHS), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are responsible for ensuring that no illegal person, substance, disease, infection, plant or animal are introduced into the United States. All international passengers, crewmembers, baggage, and cargo are subject to inspections by the FIS agencies.

The FIS facilities at an airport are subject to approval by the FIS agencies and all facilities, counters, conveyors, and necessary equipment must be provided without cost to the FIS agencies. These facilities must be separated physically and visually from the domestic operations of the airport in order to establish a sterile environment. This ensures that no inbound person can bypass inspection or interact with the public prior to inspection.

The FIS agencies have established various requirements for their facilities. These are typically based on the peak number of persons that would be processed through the facility within one hour. It is anticipated that at least initially, the facility would not process more than a maximum of 200 persons per hour. Table 4-33 indicates the area that would be required for FIS facilities processing 200 persons per hour according to guidelines outlined in INS Ports of Entry Technical Requirements.

Facility Requirements 4-33 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-33 200 PERSONS PER HOUR FEDERAL INSPECTION FACILITIES Square Foot Units Area Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) Number of positions 4 Primary inspection 3,460 Soft secondary inspection 760 Hard secondary inspection 2,910 INS administration 3,860 In-transit lounge 350 Subtotal INS 11,340

FIS baggage claim 5,130

Customs and Agriculture Inspection (USCS) Primary inspection 360 Green corridor 600 Number of secondary inspection counters 1 Secondary inspection area 530 Agricultural inspection area 20 Buffers between areas 320 Customs and agricultural offices 1,680 Subtotal USCS 3,510 U.S. Public Health Services (PHS) Offices 750 Isolation area 160 Subtotal PHS 910 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Offices (APHIS) Offices 1,870 Laboratories, counters and x-rays 60 Detector dog area 300 Cargo office 300 Subtotal APHIS 2,530 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) Offices 640 Examination room 120 Secure storage (sf) 100 Subtotal (USFWS) 860 Passenger Services Meeter/greeter restrooms 200 Meeter/greeter lobby 5,420 Waiting and seating 1,410 Subtotal passenger services 7,030 Total FIS Facilities 31,310

The area requirements for each of the agencies and the specific requirements within each area may be modified or eliminated during the early planning phases. Early coordination with the local and regional officials of each agency will determine the exact requirements for an FIS facility at

Facility Requirements 4-34 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Chattanooga. This early coordination might also result in the determination that one or more of the agencies might not require facilities at the Airport.

4.4.3 Curbfronts

The increased security procedures that came into effect after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, actually helped to increase the capacity at most airport terminal curbs in the U.S., as the public is no longer allowed to park the car and leave it at the terminal curb. Passengers and drivers are now to be actively in the process of loading or unloading the vehicle. In no case is one allowed to leave an unattended vehicle at the curb. This is also true at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport where the existing terminal curbs lengths are as shown in Table 4-34.

Table 4-34 EXISTING TERMINAL CURBS Existing Curbs in Curb Crosswalk Effective Curb Lineal Feet Length Widths Length Departure curb 290 30 260 Arrival curb 220 20 200 Commercial curbs 290 40 250 Total curb length 800 90 710

The number of lineal feet needed per planning period to accommodate the private vehicles, taxis, rental cars, and courtesy and shuttle vans has been calculated as shown in Table 4-35. These are calculated based on the split of the traffic between these various modes of transportation, as it exists today.

Table 4-35 FORECAST OF TERMINAL CURBS Required Curbs in Lineal Feet 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Departure curb 130 220 320 280 300 Arrival curb 120 90 120 120 170 Commercial curb 220 260 320 330 330 Total curb length 470 570 760 730 800

The overall effective curb length appears to be adequate through about year 2015. With the level of enplanements expected in 2017, it is expected that an additional 50 lineal feet of curb will be required and an additional 40 lineal feet of total terminal curb will be required with the level of enplanements expected in the year 2027 for a total curb length of 800 lineal feet.

The departure curb with its existing 260 lineal feet should be adequate for the next seven years or through 2015. An additional 60 feet will be needed in 2017, and a total of 300 lineal feet will be required to accommodate the number of enplaning passengers expected in 2027.

The arrival curb currently has an effective length of 200 lineal feet. This should be adequate throughout the planning period.

The commercial curbs have a total of 250 lineal feet, while 220 lineal feet are required today. By the year 2012, 260 lineal feet will be required, and by the year 2027, a total of 330 lineal feet of commercial curb are predicted to be required.

Facility Requirements 4-35 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

4.4.4 Key Commercial Service Passenger Terminal Complex Trigger Points

Specific areas of the commercial-service passenger terminal complex have been discussed in this section, and recommendations have been made for each. The determination of when to implement the improvements should be initiated by demand rather than a specific year. Table 4-36 identifies the demand levels that should “trigger” the need to implement the associated improvement. By monitoring the demand levels or “triggers,” the Airport can monitor the growth trends and expand as the demand warrants.

Table 4-36 KEY COMMERCIAL SERVICE PASSENGER TERMINAL AREA TRIGGER POINTS Functional Area Trigger Trigger Point Gates Peak hour departing When peak hour flights exceed five, additional flights gates should be added to equal the peak hour departing flights plus one gate.

Total Terminal Building Area Annual Enplanements The current total building square foot area should be able to accommodate comfortably up to approximately 362,000 annual enplanements.

Departure Lounges Total Total Peak Hour The existing total area of departure lounges Area Passengers will hold 466 Total Peak Hour Passengers.

Check-in Area Peak Hour Enplaning Adequate check-in area exists today to serve Passengers, through the planning period.

Baggage Claim Peak Hour Deplaning A third baggage claim device will be needed Passengers when Peak Hour Deplaning Passengers reach about 143 passengers.

Passenger Security Peak 20-minute Two passenger security screening checkpoint Screening Checkpoint Enplaning Passengers lanes are required today. Three passenger security screening checkpoint lanes will be required when Peak 20-minute Enplaning Passengers reaches 200 passengers.

Federal Inspection Facilities Peak Hour International FIS facilities are sized by Peak Hour (FIS) Deplaning Passengers International Deplaning Passengers, usually in units of 100. It is anticipated that if a facility is required that it should be sized for Peak Hour International Deplaning Passengers of 200.

Curbfronts Peak 20-minute The departure curb will need another 60 feet of Enplaning Passengers length when the Peak 20-minute Enplaning and Peak 20-minute Passengers reaches 200. The arrival curb has Deplaning Passengers sufficient capacity for the entire planning period. The commercial curbs will need another 70 feet when the Peak 20-minute Deplaning Passengers reaches 140.

Facility Requirements 4-36 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

4.5 GENERAL AVIATION REQUIREMENTS

General aviation encompasses all aviation activity other than commercial service and military activity. General aviation is typically divided into two groups: those that are based at the Airport and those that are transient. The facility requirements analyses the ability of the current general aviation facilities to accommodate the existing and future demand based on the general aviation activity forecasts. This section analyzes the following general aviation facility requirements:

 Based aircraft storage areas  Based aircraft tie-down aprons  Itinerant aircraft parking apron  FBO administration, pilot lounge, and general aviation terminal  FBO automobile parking  Second FBO facilities  Very Light Jet facilities

4.5.1 Based Aircraft Storage Areas

The based aircraft are typically housed in conventional hangars, T-hangars, or are tied down on a specific area of the apron. The number of aircraft forecast to be based at the Airport throughout the planning period is shown in Table 4-37.

Table 4-37 FORECAST OF BASED AIRCRAFT Fixed- Total Single Multi- Wing Based Year Engine Engine Turbine Rotorcraft Aircraft 2007 36 16 61 1 114 2012 39 17 65 1 122 2017 41 18 70 1 130 2022 44 20 75 1 140 2027 48 21 81 1 151

Conventional Hangars

Conventional hangars are capable of housing more than one aircraft. At Chattanooga, these are either controlled by individual corporate tenants or operated by the Fixed Base Operator (FBO), TAC Air. A Fixed Base Operator (FBO) is a business that provides aircraft services to pilots, including sale of fuel and oil; aircraft sales, rental, maintenance, and repair; parking and tie-down or storage of aircraft; flight training; air taxi/charter operations; and specialty services, such as instrument and avionics maintenance, painting, overhaul, aerial application, aerial photography, aerial hoists, or pipeline patrol.

In 2006, approximately 72 of the based aircraft at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport were housed in conventional hangars. Based on existing corporate hangar storage patterns, 100 percent of the fixed-wing turbine and rotorcraft aircraft, 50 percent of the multi-engine aircraft, and five percent of the single-engine aircraft were assumed to be housed in conventional hangars. Typical space allotments for each aircraft type were use to determine the gross conventional hangar requirements for each of the planning years. These are shown in Table 4-38.

Facility Requirements 4-37 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-38 FORECAST OF CONVENTIONAL HANGAR SPACE AND APRON

2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Number of aircraft in conventional hangars 72 76 82 88 95 Required square foot area in conventional hangars 164,000 174,700 187,800 201,600 217,300 Required square yards of apron area 18,200 19,400 20,900 22,400 24,100 Land in acres area of conventional hangars 7.5 8.0 8.6 9.3 10.0

Together, the hangar space that TAC Air leases and the nine additional conventional hangars, account for approximately 175,000 square feet of conventional hangar space, exclusive of offices and maintenance spaces. The conventional hangar storage is reaching capacity at this time. This is evidenced by those approaching the Airport requesting to build additional conventional hangars. It is forecast that approximately 12,800 additional square feet of conventional hangar space will be required by 2017. By 2027, a total of approximately 217,300 square feet of conventional hangar space will be needed. The apron and circulation areas of the aprons adjacent to the conventional and T-hangars are typically of a size similar to the hangars themselves.

T-Hangars

T-hangars are hangars that are shaped like a “T”, are designed to house only a single aircraft, and usually are grouped in lines of four or more. There are currently 23 T-hangars on the Airport with a total area of 24,200 square feet. Historical T-hangar storage patterns indicate that 27 percent of the multi-engine aircraft and 53 percent of the single-engine aircraft are housed in T-hangars. Typical space allotments for each aircraft type were used to determine the gross T-hangar requirements for each of the planning years. These are shown in Table 4-39.

Table 4-39 FORECAST OF T-HANGAR SPACE AND APRONS 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Number of aircraft in T-hangars 23 25 27 29 31 Required total area of T-hangars in square feet 28,100 30,300 31,900 34,500 37,300 Required apron area in square yards 3,100 3,400 3,500 3,800 4,100 Land area of T-hangars and aprons in acres 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

In 2007, 23 T-hangars were required and 31 are forecast to be required in 2027 with an associated square foot area of an additional 9,200 square feet for a total of 37,300 square feet of T-hangar space. The apron and circulation areas of the aprons adjacent to the conventional and T-hangars are typically of a size similar to the hangars themselves.

4.5.2 Based Aircraft Tie-down Aprons

For those owners of based aircraft that do not house their aircraft in the conventional hangars or the T-hangars, the remaining option is to tie the aircraft down on a specifically designated apron. In 2007, 19 aircraft were tied-down. Based on current aircraft storage practices, 42 percent of the single-engine aircraft and 23 percent of the multi-engine aircraft were determined to be in need of locations on the tie-down apron. Typical space allotments were used to determine amount of area needed for the tie-down apron as shown in Table 4-40.

Facility Requirements 4-38 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-40 FORECAST OF BASED AIRCRAFT TIE-DOWN AREAS 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Number of tie down positions 19 20 22 23 25 Required area of tie-down areas in square yards 17,900 19,300 21,200 21,900 23,700 Land area of apron in acres 3.7 4.0 4.4 4.5 4.9

By the year 2027, the demand for based aircraft tie-down area is anticipated to increase by six additional positions. The associated apron area would be increased approximately 5,800 square yards for a total of 23,700 square yards of based aircraft tie-down apron.

4.5.3 Itinerant Aircraft Parking Aprons

Transient or itinerant aircraft are typically assigned a separate area of apron. The itinerant aircraft ramp is used for parking aircraft that have come to the area for business or pleasure, for the unloading or loading of passengers, and for the short-term parking of those using the FBO facilities.

The number of itinerant aircraft parking spaces required has been calculated using the methodology contained in Appendix 5 of the FAA Advisory Circular150/5300-13 Airport Design. The busy month for operations at the Airport is typically October, which accounts for an average of 9.8 percent of the annual operations. The number of itinerant aircraft parking spaces on the apron has been calculated for the busy day, which is assumed to be 10 percent more than the average daily operations for the peak month. Itinerant apron parking positions were calculated for 50 percent of the itinerant aircraft expected to be on the apron on the busy day. The results are shown in Table 4-41.

Table 4-41 FORECAST OF ITINERANT AIRCRAFT PARKING AREAS 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Annual itinerant operations 42,536 45,300 48,300 51,400 54,800 Peak month operations (9.8% of annual) 4,169 4,439 4,733 5,037 5,370 Average day operations (31 days) 134 143 153 162 173 Busy day operations 148 158 168 179 191 Itinerant aircraft parking positions 37 39 42 45 48 Area of Itinerant aircraft parking positions in square yards 35,100 37,400 39,900 42,500 45,300 Land area of itinerant aircraft parking in acres 7.3 7.7 8.2 8.8 9.4

The results indicate that 37 itinerant aircraft parking positions were required in 2007 and 39 will be needed in 2012. By the planning year 2027, nine additional itinerant tie-down areas will be needed for 48 itinerant aircraft tie-down positions.

4.5.4 FBO Administration, Pilot Facilities and General Aviation Terminal

Two separate FBO administration/terminal facilities currently exist on the Airport: one in the southern General Aviation (GA) area and one in the northern GA area. TAC Air runs both. Current FBO facilities consist of a total of six offices, two terminal lobby areas, two conference rooms, and one pilots’ lounge. Together, there is approximately 18,500 square feet of area. The lease on

Facility Requirements 4-39 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

these areas does not expire until well after the end of the planning period of this report in 2031 and it is not expected that additional area will be added to these facilities before that time.

4.5.5 FBO Automobile Parking

In 2005, the Airport contractually agreed to provide to TAC Air, the FBO, free parking for TAC Air’s tenant customers as large as provided on the date of the lease at a location reasonably convenient to the premises. Today, there are approximately 40 spaces at TAC Air North, 66 spaces at TAC Air South, and approximately 100 at TAC Air Maintenance for a total of 206 parking spaces. The lease with TAC Air is not set to expire until several years after the end of the twenty-year planning period of this Master Plan. Should TAC Air lease additional facilities, the number of parking spaces should increase proportionately.

4.5.6 Second FBO Facilities

There is currently one FBO operating at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport: Truman Arnold Companies (TAC) doing business as TAC Air. They provide all fueling services both to the air carrier aircraft and to general aviation and military aircraft. They lease the conventional terminal just north of the commercial passenger terminal, the fuel farm, two conventional hangars just south of the commercial passenger terminal, 23 T-hangars, and the TAC Air Maintenance Center, which is comprised of three conventional hangars located adjacent to Taxiway A on the south of the Airport.

Individuals and corporations proposing to operate a second FBO facility at the Airport approach the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport from time to time. The idea of a second FBO on the Airport is an interesting one to the Airport for a number of reasons. These include increased competition on the airport for FBO services, security issues associated with air cargo, as well as the current split of GA operations on either side of the Commercial Passenger Terminal Apron and the restricted amount of land from which the Airport operates.

This section addresses the facility requirements of a potential second FBO entering the market. If a second FBO were to begin operations at Chattanooga, additional facilities would have to be built, as the TAC Air lease is not set to expire before 2031. It is not anticipated that all of the additional facilities projected to be required by general aviation would initially be built for a second FBO. However, sufficient facilities should be available to accommodate at a minimum the additional required facilities for at least five years after the second FBO begins operation. If all of the facilities could be designed, bid, and constructed within two years, the facility requirements should be sized at a minimum for the facilities that are anticipated to be required through the year 2015. As the approved aviation activity forecasts were presented in increments of five years beginning in 2007, the planning year 2017 will be used as a base for the number and size of facilities that would be needed to meet the Airport’s general aviation facility requirements, less the facilities currently occupied by TAC Air. The remaining years of the Master Plan will also be included, as they will be needed to determine the long-term size of the facilities.

Second FBO Conventional Hangars

The conventional hangar storage is approaching capacity at this time. The number of potential firms requesting to build additional conventional hangars evidence this. As shown in Table 4-42, it is forecast that a minimum of 12,800 additional square feet of conventional hangar space will be required by 2017. By 2027, a total of approximately 217,300 square feet of conventional hangar space will be needed. The apron and circulation areas of the aprons adjacent to conventional and

Facility Requirements 4-40 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

T-hangars are typically of a size similar to the hangars themselves and this is reflected in both Table 4-42 and Table 4-43. For purposes of this section, it is assumed that all conventional hangar area and the associated aprons above those in existence in the year 2007 will be operated by the second FBO.

Table 4-42 FORECAST OF SECOND FBO CONVENTIONAL HANGAR SPACE AND APRON 2017 2022 2027 Existing square feet of conventional hangars 175,000 175,000 175,000 Required square feet of conventional hangars 187,800 201,600 217,300 Surplus / (deficit) square feet of conventional hangars (12,800) (26,600) (42,300) Required additional square yards of apron for conventional hangars 1,400 3,000 4,700 Land area of additional conventional hangar space and apron in acres 0.59 1.22 1.94

Second FBO T-Hangars

Table 4-43 indicates the number of additional T-hangars that are forecast to be required in each of the planning years, as well as the area of the additional T-hangars, the associated apron, and the number of acres of land required. In 2017, a minimum of four T-hangars in addition to the existing ones will be required. By 2027, an additional eight T-hangars above those of 2007 will be needed. For the purposes of this section, it is assumed that the second FBO would operate any additional T-hangars over those in existence in the year 2007.

Table 4-43 FORECAST OF ADDITIONAL T-HANGARS, AREA, AND APRON

2017 2022 2027 Existing T-hangars 23 23 23 Number of T-hangars required 27 29 31 Surplus / (deficit) T-hangars (4) (6) (8) Square feet of additional T-hangar area 4,300 6,900 9,700 Required additional square yards of apron area for T- hangars 480 770 1,080 Land area in acres of additional T-hangars and aprons 0.20 0.32 0.45

Second FBO Based Aircraft Tie-down Aprons

For those owners of based aircraft that do not house their aircraft in hangars, the remaining option is to tie the aircraft down on a specifically designated apron. In 2007, 19 based aircraft were tied- down. Based on past parking of based aircraft 42 percent of the single-engine aircraft and 23 percent of the multi-engine aircraft were determined to be in need of locations on the tie-down apron. Typical space allotments were used to determine the amount of area needed for the tie- down apron as shown in Table 4-44.

Facility Requirements 4-41 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-44 FORECAST OF SECOND FBO BASED AIRCRAFT TIE-DOWN AREAS 2017 2022 2027 Number of existing based aircraft tie-down positions 19 19 19 Number of tie down positions required 22 23 25 Surplus / (deficit) tie down positions (3) (4) (6) Additional square yards of apron required 3,190 3,880 5,690 Additional acres of land for tie down positions 0.25 0.30 0.45

If no additional incentives are present, the demand for based aircraft tie down areas is not anticipated to increase substantially throughout the planning period with the result that in 2027, it is anticipated that there could be a need for six additional based aircraft tie-down positions. For purposes of determining the requirements of a second FBO, these six based aircraft tie-down positions were assigned to the second FBO.

Second FBO Itinerant Aircraft Parking Aprons

The itinerant aircraft ramp is used for parking aircraft that have come to the area for business or pleasure, for the unloading or loading of passengers, and for the short-term parking of those using the FBO facilities. There are currently 32 tie-down spaces. Of these, 19 are currently used by based aircraft, leaving 13 available for itinerant aircraft. For purposes of this section, it is assumed that all additional itinerant aircraft parking positions above those available in 2007 would be operated by the second FBO. Table 4-45 shows the number of itinerant parking positions that could potentially be operated by the second FBO.

Table 4-45 FORECAST OF SECOND FBO ITINERANT AIRCRAFT PARKING POSITIONS 2017 2022 2027 Annual itinerant operations 48,300 51,400 54,800 Peak month operations (9.8% of annual) 4,733 5,037 5,370 Average day operations (31 days) 153 162 173 Busy day operations 168 179 191 Itinerant aircraft parking positions 42 45 48 Number of existing itinerant aircraft parking positions 13 13 13 Surplus / (deficit) number of itinerant aircraft parking positions (29) (32) (35) Square yards of additional itinerant aircraft parking positions 27,500 30,100 32,900 Land area in acres of additional itinerant aircraft parking 5.7 6.2 6.8

The results indicate that 42 itinerant aircraft parking positions will be needed in 2017. Of the 32 existing tie-down areas, 19 are currently committed to aircraft based at the Airport leaving 13 tie- down spaces for itinerant aircraft. Therefore, as shown in Table 4-45, an additional 29 itinerant aircraft parking positions are needed by 2017 with a total of 27,500 square yards of additional apron covering approximately 5.7 acres.

Second FBO Administration, Pilot Facilities and General Aviation Terminal

If a second FBO operator were to enter the market, additional FBO administration, pilot facilities and perhaps a general aviation terminal would probably be built. If it can be assumed that the

Facility Requirements 4-42 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

second FBO were to acquire approximately half of the itinerant aircraft business, and all of the additional based aircraft positions, the building facility requirements for the FBO administration, pilot facilities and general aviation terminal could be projected similar to what is shown in Table 4-46.

Table 4-46 POTENTIAL FBO ADMINISTRATION, PILOT, AND PASSENGER FACILITIES Functional Areas in Square Feet 2017 2022 2027 Projected peak hour passengers 22 32 35 Passenger lounge 420 610 660 Pilot lounge 60 80 90 Flight planning 40 60 70 Concessions/vending 130 190 210 First conference room 110 150 160 Second conference room 50 80 80 Restrooms 70 100 100 FBO administration 80 80 80 FBO operations 180 270 290 Storage and maintenance 60 80 90 Circulation 180 260 270 Mechanical 170 240 250 Building structure 60 90 90 Total building area 1,610 2,290 2,440

It is important to work with the FBO in determining the final areas required based on the projected number of passengers and based aircraft that particular FBO operator anticipates will utilize the second FBO facility.

Second FBO Automobile Parking

If a second FBO enters the market, the number of automobile parking positions required to service that facility would be approximately as shown in Table 4-47. This number of spaces is based on one-half of the itinerant general aviation and military aircraft operations in a given year, half of the local military operations and any local based aircraft operations above those of the year 2007.

Facility Requirements 4-43 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-47 SECOND FBO AUTOMOBILE PARKING SPACES 2017 2022 2027 Conventional hangar parking spaces 7 12 17 T-hangar parking spaces 5 8 11 Based aircraft tie-down parking spaces 2 5 6 FBO employee parking spaces 8 11 12 Parking spaces for itinerant aircraft - rental cars, taxis, etc 7 11 12 Total number of parking spaces at the FBO 29 47 57

Second FBO Summary

This section addressed the number and type of facilities that a second Fixed Base Operator (FBO) at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport would potentially need in order to operate. These facilities are based on the assumption that the second FBO would be able to accommodate half of the itinerant general aviation and military operations, and any based aircraft over and above those based at the Airport in 2007.

It is assumed that it will take at least two years to design, permit and build a second FBO facility at the Airport. If planned correctly, the facility should be able to operate for at least five years after opening before any additional facilities need to be constructed. This means the facility should be sized to accommodate the traffic anticipated in the year 2015. As the Aviation Forecasts were presented in five-year increments beginning with the year 2007, the opening day plus five-year facilities are pushed forward to the year 2017.

Table 4-48 is a summary table of the various facilities that might be needed to accommodate a second FBO, with the exception of the fueling facilities, which are discussed in Section 4.7.3 of this report. These facilities are based on the assumption that the second FBO would accommodate half of the itinerant general aviation and military aircraft, and all of the based aircraft housed in conventional and T-hangars and the tie-down areas greater than those accommodated in the year 2007.

Table 4-48 SUMMARY OF FACILITIES FOR A SECOND FBO 2017 2022 2027 Additional conventional hangar positions 10 16 23 Additional square feet of conventional hangar area 12,800 26,600 42,300 Additional square yards of conventional hangar apron area 1,400 3,000 4,700 Additional number of T-hangars 4 6 8 Additional square feet of T-hangar area 4,300 6,900 9,700 Additional square yards of T-hangar apron 480 770 1,080 Additional number of based aircraft tie-down positions 3 4 6 Additional square yards of based aircraft tie-down area and circulation 3,190 3,880 5,690 Additional itinerant aircraft tie down positions 29 32 35 Additional square yards of itinerant aircraft tie down area and circulation 27,500 30,100 32,900 FBO administration, pilot's lounge, GA terminal in square feet 1,600 2,300 2,400 Second FBO associated automobile parking spaces 29 47 57 Fuel farm in square feet 3,840 3,840 3,840

Facility Requirements 4-44 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

4.5.7 Very Light Jet Facilities

The emergence of the Very Light Jets into the market has the potential to influence Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport greatly in the coming years. This new generation of aircraft has been designed to be flown with only one pilot. It has advanced automation controls in the cockpit that are easily comprehensible and can fly at higher speeds and at elevations from 18,000 to 41,000 feet. This allows it to climb above most weather. It has a short to medium range of from 300 to 600 nmi, can take off from runways of about 3,000 feet in length. It is anticipated to cost between $1.5 and $4 million. Each aircraft can accommodate from three to five passengers and one or two pilots. All of these features make it extremely attractive to aviation enthusiasts, businesspersons, and small corporations.

Of a little over a dozen companies currently designing VLJ aircraft, only two have aircraft that have been certified: Cessna and Eclipse. The Eclipse 500 is a six-seat VLJ. At this time, only about 250 Eclipse aircraft have been delivered. Of those delivered, the largest number by far has been delivered to DayJet, a commercial airline which began operations in the summer of 2007 using exclusively Eclipse 500 aircraft and which “parked” its entire fleet on September 18, 2008 due to “economic reasons.”

DayJet did not offer scheduled service. Travel was booked on-line, the passenger directed where, and when they wanted to travel. The price was based on the amount of flexibility in the itinerary and reportedly was comparable to that of a scheduled commercial airline.

DayJet, who wanted to expand to the Airport once their initial operations in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and North Carolina stabilized, approached Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. If such a facility, whether operated by DayJet or another operator, were to locate at Chattanooga, the size of the facility would be dependent upon the number of passengers that the operator expected to attract. Facilities at the Lakeland Lindner Airport in Lakeland, Florida, where DayJet operated consisted of a total of 326 square feet of dedicated facilities. It is likely, at least in the beginning, that if such an operation were to come to Chattanooga that they would only require approximately this amount of dedicated space.

Facilities at the Gainesville Regional Airport where DayJet operated a “DayBase” included a 61,000 square foot building and associated ramp. The building contains both hangar space where heavy maintenance of the aircraft was done and offices. Other “DayBases” were projected to require 5,000 to 15,000 square feet of leased hangar space.

While it is too soon to tell how the cessation of DayJet’s operations will affect the use of VLJs for air taxi services, the VLJ will also be used as a corporate aircraft. It is anticipated that between 800 and 1,400 VLJ will be manufactured annually between 2007 and 2010. After that, manufacturing is expected to steady at between 1,200 and 1,400 aircraft per year. As these aircraft enter the market, the number of general aviation operations is expected to increase. Chattanooga could well see as many as 100 operations per year of these aircraft by private or corporate users alone by the year 2017 and over 200 operations per year by 2027.

If VLJ owners were to base their aircraft at the Airport, it could well trigger an increased demand, not only for conventional hangars, but for T-hangars as well. While most owners able to purchase such an aircraft will probably desire to house the aircraft in a conventional hangar, the size of the aircraft does not require it. The average size of the VLJ’s will allow them to be easily housed in a standard T-hangar, if so desired.

Facility Requirements 4-45 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

4.6 AIR CARGO REQUIREMENTS

The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport has long had air cargo service. In the last number of years, the amount of cargo traveling into and out of the Airport has risen dramatically. This triggered the Airport’s desire to investigate the viability of continuing the growth of air cargo at the Airport. If viable, what facilities would be required? This section explores the facilities that would be required to fulfill Chattanooga’s air cargo role.

4.6.1 Existing Air Cargo Facilities

Currently, the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport’s cargo facilities are comprised of two multi-tenant terminals with a total of 22,400 square feet. Of total cargo terminal capacity, freight tenants occupy only about 7,500 square feet of space. Non-cargo tenants occupy some, while other space is currently unsuitable for occupancy. While there appears to be little urgency for near-term augmentation of dedicated air cargo facilities, the Airport’s plan to renovate existing dilapidated cargo space is warranted.

Due to the diminishing domestic market cargo volumes of recent years and a prognosis for future slow-growth, many airports are unlikely to face critical cargo-related capital investment decisions for several years. In fact, industry consolidation (acquisitions) left tremendous redundancy as DHL and UPS have sought to rationalize their occupancy of former Airborne and Emery (respectively) facilities. In some sense, this trend continues the already lower occupancy effect resulting from passenger carriers increasingly outsourcing their ground (ramp) operations to third-party ground- handlers. Because these handlers often serve a variety of carriers, they achieve a more efficient use of terminal space and therefore often require far less space to serve a variety of carriers than those carriers individually require.

What makes the preceding relevant for Chattanooga – including references to non-tenant UPS – is that the excess supply of cargo facilities at small and medium-sized airports has left carriers less inclined to support construction of speculative new multi-tenant facilities. Moreover, recent indications from all three major integrated carriers have been that expectations for the near to mid- term are relatively conservative for new on-airport facilities development in North America.

4.6.2 Cargo Terminal Planning Metrics

A number of complicating factors discourage the evolution of a single metric for right-sizing airport cargo warehouses – especially those with multiple (often-dissimilar) tenants. While facilities planners base many computations on anticipated throughput (tonnage), the variable of dwell-time is too often inadequately considered. It is not enough to know how much but also how quickly cargo moves through a facility because spatial consumption also depends upon how long cargo remains on-site.

Owing to different velocities of transfer, area required inbound and outbound may differ even when bi-directional cargo happens to be roughly equivalent4 as it is at Chattanooga. The build-up of containers may occur on or off-airport. FedEx tends to perform more of its sort operations on- airport, while UPS typically uses airport terminals as throughput stations while emphasizing off- airport sites for most operations. Express carriers typically aim for high-throughput operations largely focusing on envelopes and small packages with high degrees of automation. The equipment utilized can require either more or less space depending upon the scale of throughput.

4 At Chattanooga, enplaned cargo accounts for 49 percent, while deplaned cargo accounts for 51 percent of the total.

Facility Requirements 4-46 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

It would also depend on whether the on-airport site is the principal terminal or merely a conduit for a more intensive off-airport distribution center.

The International Air Transport Association’s (IATA) Airport Development Reference Manual, Edition 9 offers the guidelines shown in Table 4-49 for planning of cargo terminal buildings.

Table 4-49 PLANNING GUIDELINES FOR AIR CARGO TERMINALS

Amount of Automation Tons per Square Foot Low automation (mostly manual) 0.5 tons per 1.0 square ft. Automated (average) 1.0 tons per 1.0 square ft. Highly automated 1.8 tons per 1.0 square ft. Source: IATA Airport Development Reference Manual, 9th Edition

Typically, integrated carriers are highly automated but even at the less productive “average” automation, according to IATA’s planning guidelines, Chattanooga’s cargo terminal capacity of 22,400 square feet should suffice to accommodate 22,400 short tons of cargo – a volume Chattanooga is not forecast to reach in the “base case” of the planning horizon.

Pursuant to ramp needs, the Air Transport Association’s (ATA) Facility Planning Guidelines for Air Cargo Facilities (2001) suggests that for every square foot of facility warehouse space, the ramp space (exclusive of taxiways) should be constructed as shown in Table 4-50.

Table 4-50 PLANNING GUIDELINES FOR AIR CARGO RAMP Square Feet of Ramp Area Required Per Square Foot Cargo Warehouse Type of Warehouse Passenger cargo 1.25 - 1.50 Freighter 1.50 - 1.75 Express spoke 1.75 - 2.50 Express hub 2.50 + Source: ATA Facility Planning Guidelines for Air Cargo Facilities (2001)

The larger of Chattanooga’s two cargo buildings is served by a non-contiguous 25,000 square foot ramp adequate for two narrow-body aircraft. With the Chattanooga operation’s primary function as a spoke market for DHL and FedEx, the applicable designation is the “Express Spoke”. With current cargo warehouse space at 22,400 square feet and the “Express Spoke” designation, the projected ramp need would be between 39,200 and 56,000 square feet.

Pursuant to the facility requirements presented above, FedEx provided a floor plan for a prospective 31,400 square foot cargo terminal with a total site requirement of 120,000 square feet. Rather than potentially build unnecessary space “on speculation”, the Airport should remain in consistent contact with FedEx to monitor its interest in potential expansion at the Airport.

Facility Requirements 4-47 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

4.7 SUPPORT FACILITIES

The support facilities at an airport provide a broad but essential set of functions that ensure the safe and efficient operation of the airport. The facility requirements for each of the applicable support facilities for the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport are discussed in this section.

4.7.1 Air Traffic Control Tower

The Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) is a 111-foot high structure built in 1983. It is currently open from 6:00 a.m. to 11:50 p.m. local time. The ATCT is considered sufficient to meet the requirements placed on it throughout the planning period.

4.7.2 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting

The Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facility was completed in 2005 and designed to meet Index B requirements. The longest aircraft currently serving the Airport is an MD-83 with a length of 147’-10”. This aircraft qualifies as an Index C aircraft, but does not depart the Airport an average of five or more times per day. Part 139 Section 315 allows the Airport to operate the next lower index if the longest aircraft does not fly with the prescribed frequency. The next lower index in this case is the Index B. It is not envisioned that this aircraft or any other within the Index C lengths will depart the Airport an average of five or more times per day within the planning period.

The minimum requirements for an Index B ARFF are that it be able to house the following:

 One vehicle carrying at least 500 pounds of sodium-based dry chemical, halon 1211, or clean agent and 1,500 gallons of water and the commensurate quantity of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) for foam production.

Or

 A second vehicle carrying either: o 500 pounds of sodium-based dry chemical, halon1211, or clean agent, or o 450 pounds of potassium-based dry chemical and water with a commensurate quantity of AFFF to total 100 gallons for simultaneous dry chemical and AFFF application, and

 A third vehicle carrying an amount of water and the commensurate quantity of AFFF so that the total quantity of water for foam production carried by this vehicle and the second vehicle is at least 1,500 gallons

The existing ARFF meets the second criteria.

4.7.3 Fuel Storage

Commercially available fuel is currently stored in two locations at the Airport. The primary fuel farm is located between two hangars on the North Apron. This facility has two 20,000 gallon Jet A fuel tanks, one 15,000 Avgas fuel tank, one 10,000 gallon unleaded motor gasoline (Mogas) tank, and a fuel truck holding area. All of the tanks at this location are underground storage tanks (UST). A secondary tank area is located next to the South Apron. This facility has two 15,000 gallon above ground storage tanks (AST) for Jet A fuel, a 1,000 gallon AST for diesel fuel, and a fuel truck holding area. Both of these facilities are owned and operated by TAC Air, the Fixed Base Operator (FBO).

Facility Requirements 4-48 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-51 indicates the current capacity of the existing facilities for each type of fuel and the number of days that quantity of fuel is likely to last given the operations projected to occur. A five- day fuel reserve is recommended for Jet A fuel. The current facilities are projected to be able to accommodate this recommendation through the year 2017, after which time, additional capacity will be required to maintain the five-day fuel reserve.

Facility Requirements 4-49 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-51 TOTAL FUEL STORAGE FACILITIES 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Annual operations operations 78,651 80,300 84,200 88,400 93,000 Jet A Annual fuel sales gallons 3,150,000 3,650,500 4,063,400 4,690,300 5,186,000 Peak month fuel sales per operation gallons 40 43 46 50 53 Peak month fuel sales gallons 308,700 339,500 377,900 436,200 482,300 Average day peak month fuel sales gallons 9,958 11,000 12,200 14,100 15,600 Five day fuel reserve gallons 49,790 55,000 61,000 70,500 78,000 Settlement (11% of total storage) gallons 6,154 6,800 7,540 8,710 9,640 Total fuel storage required gallons 55,944 61,800 68,500 79,200 87,600 Current fuel capacity gallons 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 Days of supply at current fuel capacity gallons 6 6 5 4 4 Avgas (100LL) or Avgas Equivalent Annual fuel sales gallons 145,000 169,900 187,100 186,000 195,700 Peak month fuel sales per operation gallons 2 2 2 2 2 Peak month fuel sales gallons 14,210 15,800 17,400 17,300 18,200 Average day peak month fuel sales gallons 458 510 560 560 590 Five day fuel reserve gallons 2,292 2,550 2,800 2,800 2,950 Settlement (11% of total storage) gallons 283 320 340 340 360 Total fuel storage required gallons 2,575 2,900 3,100 3,100 3,300 Current fuel capacity gallons 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Days of supply at current fuel capacity gallons 29 26 24 24 23 Mogas Annual fuel sales gallons 14,850 17,000 18,700 20,600 22,800 Peak month fuel sales per operation gallons 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Peak month fuel sales gallons 1,455 1,580 1,740 1,920 2,120 Average day peak month fuel sales gallons 47 51 56 62 68 Five day fuel reserve gallons 235 250 280 310 340 Settlement (11% of total storage) gallons 29 30 30 40 40 Total fuel storage required gallons 264 280 310 350 380 Current fuel capacity gallons 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Days of supply at current fuel capacity gallons 212 170 160 140 130 Diesel Annual fuel sales gallons 12,960 14,840 16,340 17,960 19,890 Peak month fuel sales per operation gallons 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Peak month fuel sales gallons 1,270 1,380 1,520 1,670 1,850 Average day peak month fuel sales gallons 41 40 50 50 60 Five day fuel reserve gallons 205 200 250 250 300 Settlement (11% of total storage) gallons 25 20 30 30 40 Total fuel storage required gallons 230 220 280 280 340 Current fuel capacity gallons 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Days of supply at current fuel capacity gallons 22 22 18 18 15

By 2027, it is predicted that Avgas will no longer be available for sale. It could happen well before that. The future of Avgas or 100-low-level, or 100-LL as it is also commonly called, is being debated in the aviation industry. The question at present is not so much if it will survive, but for how long. Avgas contains Tetra-ethyl Lead (TEL), which is a highly toxic substance banned by the

Facility Requirements 4-50 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

U.S. Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) in the 1980s from all gasoline. Even though Avgas contains over four times as much lead as the highest-octane fuels produced for autos, leaded aviation fuels were granted a special case reprieve as long as there was progress toward a suitable alternative. However, any alternative must be less toxic than TEL. To date, no suitable replacement has been found. Other factors that will influence the disappearance of 100-LL include:

 Only a small number of refineries produce 100-LL.

 Only one factory in England produces TEL.

 Because 100-LL contains TEL, it must be refined, stored and transported in separate facilities from all other fuels. If these facilities are used for other types of fuels, they must be shut down and completely cleaned first.

 The current production of 100-LL in the world is less than one percent of all gasoline produced.

 All of these factors cause the price of 100-LL to increase, which reduces the demand, which increases the cost.

The GA piston engines that were certified for the higher-octane leaded fuels will have to be de- rated from their current power levels, which will result in power level drops so severe that the corresponding decreases in payload will make many of the aircraft unusable. Several engine manufacturers are researching and developing alternative engines such as jet-fueled retrofit engines. However, speculation in the industry is that many of the retrofits will cost more than the cost of the aircraft and that high octane Mogas might be a more viable alternative. For these reasons, in this report 100-LL is labeled Avgas or Avgas Equivalent.

If a second FBO should enter the market, it is anticipated that a second fueling facility would be located in the area of the second FBO. In determining the size of the second fuel farm, it was determined that the facility should be sized for at least five years after it is opened. Assuming that it would take two years to design and construct, the facility could be open as early as 2010. Five years after that would be 2015. The next forecast year in this analysis after that is 2017. Thus, the facilities were sized for the purposes of this report for the year 2017. By 2017, it is assumed that half of the commercial operations would be fueled from the second FBO in addition to half of the itinerant general aviation operations, half of the military operations, and any additional local general aviation above the local operations of the year 2007. The resulting required fuel storage capacity for the second FBO based on the above assumptions is shown in Table 4-52.

Facility Requirements 4-51 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-52 FUEL STORAGE CAPACITY FOR A SECOND FBO Units 2017 2022 2027 One half of commercial operations operations 11,900 12,480 13,950 One half itinerant GA and military operations operations 24,150 25,700 27,400 Based aircraft operations above 2007 numbers operations 650 800 800 One half local military operations operations 1,300 1,050 750 Total annual operations for second FBO operations 38,003 40,030 42,900 Jet A Annual fuel sales gallons 1,740,500 1,926,900 2,170,400 Peak month fuel sales per operation gallons 46 48 51 Peak month fuel sales gallons 170,600 188,800 212,700 Average day peak month fuel sales gallons 5,500 6,100 6,900 Five day fuel reserve gallons 27,500 30,500 34,500 Settlement (11% of total storage) gallons 3,400 3,800 4,300 Total fuel storage required gallons 30,900 34,300 38,800 Percentage of total airport Jet A fuel percent 45.1% 45.3% 46.4% Avgas (100LL) or equivalent substitute Annual fuel sales gallons 80,120 88,698 99,906 Peak month fuel sales per operation gallons 2 2 2 Peak month fuel sales gallons 7,900 8,700 9,800 Average day peak month fuel sales gallons 250 280 320 Five day fuel reserve gallons 1,250 1,400 1,600 Settlement (11% of total storage) gallons 150 180 200 Total fuel storage required gallons 1,400 1,600 1,800 Percentage of total airport Avgas fuel percent 45.2% 51.6% 54.5% Mogas Annual fuel sales gallons 8,000 8,900 10,000 Peak month fuel sales per operation gallons 0.2 0.2 0.2 Peak month fuel sales gallons 800 900 1,000 Average day peak month fuel sales gallons 30 30 30 Five day fuel reserve gallons 150 150 150 Settlement (11% of total storage) gallons 20 20 20 Total fuel storage required gallons 170 170 170 Percentage of total airport Mogas fuel percent 54.8% 48.6% 44.7% Diesel Annual fuel sales gallons 7,000 7,700 8,700 Peak month fuel sales per operation gallons 0.2 0.2 0.2 Peak month fuel sales gallons 700 800 900 Average day peak month fuel sales gallons 20 30 30 Five day fuel reserve gallons 100 150 150 Settlement (11% of total storage) gallons 10 20 20 Total fuel storage required gallons 110 170 170 Percentage of total airport diesel fuel percent 39.3% 60.7% 50.0%

Should a second FBO desire to sell all of the various types of fuel that are listed above, it is likely the Jet A fuel would be accommodated with two tanks of 15,000 gallons apiece, and a third tank of 10,000 gallons. The Avgas or Avgas substitute (100-LL) would be accommodated with one 2,000-

Facility Requirements 4-52 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

gallon tank and the Mogas and diesel fuels would be accommodated with a 200-gallon tank each. These would be contained within a structure approximately 80 feet long by 48 feet wide with a four- foot surrounding wall that would be able to contain at least 1.25 times the volume of all of the tanks.

4.7.4 Airport Maintenance

The Airport maintenance facilities are currently housed in two buildings that together have approximately 11,300 square feet. These facilities appear to be the right size for the current airport maintenance operations. If additional pavement were added to the Airport, such as with the extension of a runway, this could trigger the need for additional equipment needed to maintain the additional pavement. This could in turn trigger the need for additional airport maintenance facilities.

4.8 CIRCULATION AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS

The increases in enplaned passenger traffic also indicate a consistent increase in passenger- vehicle traffic volumes. The increased service by the Low Cost Carriers in particular is anticipated to trigger additional traffic coming from a greater distance to reach the Airport. This section analyzes the impacts the increased number of vehicles will have on the terminal area circulation, as well as public, employee, and rental car parking.

4.8.1 Terminal Area Circulation

The existing terminal area Loop Road is currently accessed off either the Airport Connector Road Bridge or Airport Road. It circulates between the short- and long-term parking lots and Airport Road, past the entrance to the intermediate-term parking lot, in front of the commercial service passenger terminal, past the entrance and exits to the rental car ready/return lot, the exit from the public parking lot back to the recirculation road or the Airport Connector Road Bridge. This circulation pattern is shown in Figure 4-2.

Facility Requirements 4-53 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 4-2 TERMINAL ROADWAY SYSTEM

Facility Requirements 4-54 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

General guidelines for terminal roadway systems for airports of a similar size and operation to the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport recommend that the terminal loop road have a minimum of two 12-foot wide lanes with a capacity of 600 vehicles per hour each, a recirculation road of two 12-foot wide lanes with a capacity of 600 vehicles per hour and a terminal roadway with four lanes. The lane closest to the terminal should be at least eight feet wide and would have no practical capacity. The remaining three lanes should be at least 12-feet wide. The lane nearest the curb lane would have a practical capacity of 300 vehicles per hour as it is used to maneuver between the curb lane and the through lanes. The two remaining lanes are considered through lanes and should have a capacity each of 600 vehicles per hour. A comparison of the existing elements of the existing Loop Road and the recommended minimums can be found in Table 4-53.

Table 4-53 EXISTING AND RECOMMENDED TERMINAL ROADWAY CAPACITIES Number of Lanes Capacity (vehicles per hour) Recommended Calculated Recommended Loop Road Element Existing Minimum Existing Minimum Between Airport Road and long-term parking 2 2 1,200 1,200 Between short- and intermediate-term parking 1 2 450 1,200 In front of terminal check-in and baggage claim 3 4 900 1,500 In front of terminal entrance 3 4 900 1,500 Between long-term parking and rental car parking 2 2 1,200 1,200 Recirculation road 1 2 600 600 Entrance/exit bridge 4 4 2,800 2,800

As can be seen from Table 4-53, there is more than one area of the roadway that does not meet generally accepted minimums. It also shows that the point of most concern is the one lane area just prior to the terminal that is located between the short-term parking lot and the intermediate parking lot. The existing capacity of this area has been calculated as 450 vehicles per hour. Not only does it have only one lane, but it also has both the entrance and exit from the intermediate – term lot in this section of the roadway as well.

The number of peak hour vehicles projected to be on the roadway system during the various peak hours over the planning period have also been calculated as shown in Table 4-54. While there are occasional periods today when the traffic is backed up during peak hours, this usually occurs when double parking is occurring at the terminal curb. This further reduces the low capacity of the roadway system in front of the terminal. The traffic backs up into the one lane portion of the roadway. This is normally relieved with good policing of the curb. However, the situation even with exemplary policing will begin to breakdown with increasing regularity as the combined peak hour numbers of 2022 are reached and the peak-vehicle numbers increase to approximately 460 vehicles per hour during this combined peak. This is more than the 450 vehicles per hour capacity of the one lane portion of the roadway system that travels past the intermediate-term parking lot. This portion of the roadway in particular will not be able to meet the demand. Even with excellent curb policing, the roadway system will not be able to accommodate adequately the peak hour number of vehicles and capacity will need to be added.

Table 4-54 PEAK HOUR VEHICLES ON TERMINAL ROADWAY SYSTEM 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Enplaning passenger vehicles 120 140 180 220 240 Deplaning passenger vehicles 200 180 250 270 340 Total peak hour passenger vehicles 150 290 440 460 480

Facility Requirements 4-55 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

4.8.2 Parking

The parking at the Airport has been divided into three principle user groups: the commercial passenger, the Airport employee, and the commercial passengers renting vehicles at the Airport. This section analyzes the parking requirements of each of these groups.

PARKING SUPPLY

There are currently 1,132 spaces available for public parking in the Short Term Lot (173 spaces), the Intermediate Term Lot (220 spaces) and the Long Term Lot (739 spaces). Some employees are permitted to park in the public facilities, and according to Airport staff, approximately 25 employees routinely park in the three lots. These spaces and the rates charged for each are shown in Table 4-55.

Table 4-55 PARKING SUPPLY Parking Lot Spaces Fee Public parking lots Short-term 173 15 minutes free; then $1 per 30 minutes; max. $12 per day Intermediate-term 220 15 minutes free; then $0.75 per 30 minutes; max. $7 per day Long-term 739 $1 per hour; max $7 per day Subtotal public parking lots 1,132 Employee lot 94 $20 per month; $10 per month TSA Subtotal public and employee 1,226 Temporary gravel lot 150 No charge, currently Rental car ready/return lot 97 Total on-Airport parking 1,473 Parking spaces available at Thrifty Airport parking (off-Airport) 25-50 $4.99 per day plus tax

Employee parking is currently provided in the employee lot north of the Intermediate Lot, and in a temporary gravel lot south of the terminal. With the recent increase in enplanements, public parking demand has grown to the point that on some days, the employee lot is needed for public parking. On those days, employees are asked to park in the gravel lot. They ride a shuttle bus to the terminal. The card access gate normally used by employees is closed, and an internal gate linking the employee lot to the Intermediate Lot is opened.

Rental car ready/return spaces are provided in a separate lot immediately south of the terminal. Ninety-seven spaces are provided for the five rental car agencies operating on the Airport.

There is only one provider of off-airport public parking, that being Thrifty Airport Parking. Thrifty offers an estimated 25 – 50 spaces and charges $4.99 per day plus tax.

Enplanements

Parking demand at an airport is directly related to originating enplanements, so it is important to understand enplanement history and forecasts. This information is contained in Chapter 3, Aviation Forecasts. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all enplanements at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport are originating enplanements, with no connections.

Facility Requirements 4-56 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

From 1995 through 2007, there have been double digit increases in annual enplanements by as much as 18.8 percent and double digit decreases by as much as 13.2 percent. The forecast for the immediate future reflects the expected impact of low cost carriers entering the market and increasing flights and available seats. From 2007 to 2012, the average annual increase in enplanements is forecast to be 0.6 percent per year. After that, the forecast annual average increase is forecast to be 2.8 percent through 2017, and 2.7 percent through 2017.

In the last four years, May has been the peak month of enplanements, except for 2006 when it was the second highest month. It is interesting to note that at no time in the last six years has the peak month of enplanements been a traditional holiday month of November or December. In 2007, May was the peak month of enplanements and October was a close second.

Airline market share is depicted in Table 4-56. It is important to note that the market share of low cost carriers (LCCs) has increased from 2.1 percent in 2006 to 9.9 percent in 2008. Allegiant Air began operations at Chattanooga in October 2006 and Skybus began operations in December 2007. The small increase in forecast enplanements between 2007 and 2012 is due to expected decreases in service to Chattanooga due to the continuing fuel price crisis.

Table 4-56 AIRLINE MARKET SHARE September Airline CY 2006 2008 Allegiant Air 2.1% 9.9% American Eagle 12.7% 12.4% Continental Express 6.7% 0.0% Delta Connection 43.0% 41.9% Northwest Airlink 11.4% 13.3% US Airways Express 23.5% 22.5% Charter 0.5% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

However, the influence of Allegiant Air, an LCC, in the market is expected to offset the fuel issue somewhat. The introduction of an LCC into a market, or the expansion of LCC operations, can have an impact on public parking demand well beyond the simple increase in enplanements due to the increased service. First, the average trip on a LCC tends to be longer in duration, as the LCCs attract more leisure travelers, and leisure trips tend to be longer than business trips. Thus, a single trip can result in a car in the parking lot for more days, increasing overall parking demand. Second, LCCs draw customers from a broader geographic area, where alternate ground transportation is not available or not cost competitive with driving and parking at the Airport. Finally, the LCCs may foster competition in airfares among the legacy carriers serving the Airport, thus increasing overall enplanements. While the parking operator, Republic Parking Systems, reports that the parking pattern at Chattanooga reflected a classic “business airport” in the past, with the busiest parking days Tuesday through Thursday, this pattern is probably changing due to the introduction of LCCs.

Public Parking Demand

Parking demand at an airport is normally expressed as a ratio of spaces required per 1,000 annual originating enplanements. Before determining this ratio, a critical question to answer is “What level of activity should the design accommodate?” The recommended approach is to choose a design day that represents a high level of activity, and a day on which operations should run smoothly and routinely, but not the absolute peak day.

Facility Requirements 4-57 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Like most systems, a parking system runs most efficiently when it is at 85 percent to 95 percent of capacity. The “cushion” of 5 percent to 15 percent of the spaces allows for the dynamics of cars moving into and out of spaces, reduces search time for a space, and allows for temporary loss of spaces due to minor construction, snow cover, or unforeseen circumstances. Ideally, this cushion can also accommodate parkers on days, which are busier than the design day. On those extremely busy days, there should still be a space for everyone, but the cushion will be very small and search times will be high. (This circumstance is in keeping with customer expectations: if one goes to the mall on the Saturday before Christmas, one expects it to be crowded. Likewise, if one goes to the airport on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, one expects the parking system to be quite full.)

Table 4-57 contains parking occupancy counts for May, October, and December of 2007, as well as January 2008. Because of the availability of data and the way it was presented, the May and October counts show the actual peak in each of the three lots for that day, the sum of which probably overstates slightly the true total peak parking demand for that day. The December and January data represents the peak count for the system as a whole that day; the individual lots may have peaked at different times of day.

Despite these small discrepancies in how the data is presented, it is clear that the parking system was overtaxed in 2007 and for at least the first month of 2008. Each cell in the table shaded orange represents a day when an individual lot (Short, Intermediate or Long Term) experienced an occupancy equal to or greater than its stated capacity. Each cell in the table shaded yellow represents a day on which the entire system was more than 90 percent occupied. At this level of usage, it is easy to predict that the Chattanooga customer experienced the following frustrations:

• The desired lot might have been full, requiring re-direction to an alternate lot. • The entire system appeared to be full to the user. • Search times for a space were high. • When a space was finally found, it was a long way from the terminal. • The patron was getting nervous about making his flight or meeting his party.

Facility Requirements 4-58 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-57 PARKING OCCUPANCY - PUBLIC LOTS

May 2007 October 2007 December 2007 January 2007 Short- Long- Inter Total Percent Short- Long- Inter Total Percent Short- Long- Inter Total Percent Short- Long- Inter Total Percent term term mediate of term term mediate of term term mediate of term term mediate of 173 739 220 1,132 1,132 173 739 220 1,132 1,132 173 739 220 1,132 1,132 173 739 220 1,132 1,132 Day 1 172 426 174 772 68.2% 76 454 115 645 57.0% 86 442 74 602 53.2% 79 473 99 651 57.5% 2 177 519 190 886 78.3% 105 518 140 763 67.4% 96 454 85 635 56.1% 116 445 112 673 59.5% 3 174 510 143 827 73.1% 117 588 162 867 76.6% 80 553 136 769 67.9% 144 441 118 703 62.1% 4 119 431 107 657 58.0% 106 572 147 825 72.9% 101 626 138 865 76.4% 106 389 119 614 54.2% 5 114 370 76 560 49.5% 65 545 109 719 63.5% 130 635 172 937 82.8% 71 64 86 221 19.5% 6 174 328 77 579 51.1% 18 564 79 661 58.4% 108 636 152 896 79.2% 97 55 82 234 20.7% 7 155 362 122 639 56.4% 48 560 82 690 61.0% 80 578 106 764 67.5% 82 404 158 644 56.9% 8 174 537 159 870 76.9% 83 596 121 800 70.7% 30 494 53 577 51.0% 89 456 182 727 64.2% 9 174 509 180 863 76.2% 135 639 200 974 86.0% 33 449 66 548 48.4% 125 506 209 840 74.2% 10 174 583 168 925 81.7% 155 679 212 1,046 92.4% 80 608 148 836 73.9% 124 533 174 831 73.4% 11 104 525 116 745 65.8% 125 663 195 983 86.8% 103 665 185 953 84.2% 93 487 114 694 61.3% 12 67 403 62 532 47.0% 72 623 160 855 75.5% 173 673 226 1,072 94.7% 40 351 77 468 41.3% 13 109 347 63 519 45.8% 48 577 108 733 64.8% 169 650 196 1,015 89.7% 46 295 91 432 38.2% 14 149 437 124 710 62.7% 66 555 108 729 64.4% 107 616 139 862 76.1% 94 296 173 563 49.7% 15 174 493 168 835 73.8% 89 608 180 877 77.5% 95 511 93 699 61.7% 171 691 186 1,048 92.6% 16 175 744 220 1,139 100.6% 109 663 202 974 86.0% 81 462 78 621 54.9% 178 694 211 1,083 95.7% 17 176 730 216 1,122 99.1% 158 664 219 1,041 92.0% 94 495 102 691 61.0% 174 727 192 1,093 96.6% 18 167 687 141 995 87.9% 172 620 120 912 80.6% 130 535 114 779 68.8% 140 645 142 927 81.9% 19 162 563 100 825 72.9% 147 615 64 826 73.0% 148 539 125 812 71.7% 49 571 82 702 62.0% 20 174 543 102 819 72.3% 46 563 0.0% 105 532 108 745 65.8% 68 572 87 727 64.2% 21 173 555 143 871 76.9% 56 554 0.0% 89 554 72 715 63.2% 87 601 132 820 72.4% 22 175 535 146 856 75.6% 80 625 0.0% 52 652 50 754 66.6% 125 645 205 975 86.1% 23 175 744 159 1,078 95.2% 175 749 108 1,032 91.2% 100 734 69 903 79.8% 174 717 225 1,116 98.6% 24 136 604 127 867 76.6% 174 742 180 1,096 96.8% 37 713 78 828 73.1% 173 741 213 1,127 99.6% 25 98 514 87 699 61.7% 173 717 155 1,045 92.3% 41 753 88 882 77.9% 133 678 151 962 85.0% 26 64 283 63 410 36.2% 143 681 74 898 79.3% 78 740 86 904 79.9% 48 553 109 710 62.7% 27 103 272 60 435 38.4% 92 540 0.0% 93 701 82 876 77.4% 50 532 116 698 61.7% 28 93 167 62 322 28.4% 113 513 0.0% 66 652 90 808 71.4% 89 552 179 820 72.4% 29 158 334 99 591 52.2% 87 576 107 770 68.0% 63 671 79 813 71.8% 112 645 211 968 85.5% 30 174 361 118 653 57.7% 92 581 100 773 68.3% 88 660 76 824 72.8% 173 704 209 1,086 95.9% 31 173 395 117 685 60.5% 91 560 123 774 68.4% 175 716 209 1,100 97.2% 1 – Where no count is shown, count system was not operating. 2 – The May and October data show the peak hour in each lot, and the sum is probably greater than the actual parking occupancy in the peak hour of that day. 3 – The December and January data show the peak parking occupancy during that day. One or more of the lots may have peaked at a different hour of the day. 4 – Yellow cells denote when the parking occupancy exceeded 90 percent of the capacity of the system. 5 – Orange cells denote days when parking occupancy equaled or exceeded the capacity of the individual lot.

Facility Requirements 4-59 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

It is recommended that a conservative approach be used in determining the design day for parking at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, and thus the parking demand ratio. While many airport facilities are designed for the average day of the peak month (ADPM), we recommend that the parking system be designed for the peak day of the peak month (PDPM). The reasons for this recommendation are as follow:

• First, the peak day of the peak month of enplanements does not represent the peak day of the year. For example, the parking demand on a holiday weekend may be higher than the busiest day in May.

• Second, there is only one small off-airport parking provider, with no more expected, to act as a “shock absorber” when the Airport’s parking system becomes overloaded. In other words, if a patron drives to the Airport, his car must be accommodated.

• Third, the history of enplanements at Chattanooga has proven to be volatile over the years, so it behooves the Airport to remain nimble in order to accommodate sometimes-sudden increases in enplanements.

• Finally, if enplanements on LCCs comprise a large portion of increased enplanements over the next few years, the parking demand at Chattanooga may grow more quickly than enplanements.

The PDPM parking demand at Chattanooga is estimated to be 1,130 spaces. However, Airport personnel report that authorized employees routinely use about 25 spaces in the public lots, so the public parking demand is 1,130 – 25 = 1,105. A cushion of 10 percent is added to this demand so that the system operates efficiently on the design day. On days that are busier than the design day, the cushion becomes smaller and parking is tighter. The parking demand including a 10 percent cushion is therefore calculated as 1,105/0.90 = 1,228. When compared to Calendar Year (CY) 2007 annual enplanements, the public parking demand ratio is 1,228/301.718 = 4.07 spaces per 1,000 annual originating enplanements.

This ratio is applied to the forecast enplanements throughout the planning period as shown in Table 4-58. This calculation results in a 2007 deficit of 121 public parking spaces, growing to a deficit of 140 spaces in 2012 and 757 spaces in 2027.

Table 4-58 PUBLIC PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS

Parking Demand Projected Existing Surplus/ Year Ratio 1 Demand Supply 2 (Deficit) CY 2007 4.07 1,228 1,107 (121) FY 2012 4.07 1,247 1,107 (140) FY 2017 4.07 1,435 1,107 (328) FY 2022 4.07 1,635 1,107 (528) FY 2027 4.07 1,864 1,107 (757) 1 Parking demand ratio includes 10 percent cushion 2 Parking supply = 1,132 spaces in public lots less 25 spaces in those lots that are regularly occupied by employees.

It should be noted that the parking demand ratio could be measured with some precision for any particular year, so long as the proper data is collected. However, it is not a static number, although

Facility Requirements 4-60 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

it has been treated it as such in the projections, because the nature of the airline passenger changes over time is due to a number of factors. For example, if enplanements on LCCs comprise a large portion of the increased enplanements over the next few years, the parking demand at the Airport may increase more quickly than enplanements, for reasons stated previously. Therefore, it is good practice to check this calculation each year to track trends and act more quickly when patterns are changing.

Employee Parking Demand

Employees parking at the Airport include Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority employees, TSA employees, board members, car rental company employees, airline employees (both based and non-based), and so on. Some of these employees, about 25 on a typical day, are authorized to park in the public lots. The remainders are issued a proximity card allowing them access to the employee lot north of the terminal.

A gravel overflow lot was opened in mid-October 2007 south of the terminal. When public parking demand is expected to exceed the capacity of the public lots, based on flight booking information from the airlines, employees are notified in advance and are asked to park in the gravel lot. They ride a shuttle bus to the terminal. Access to the Employee Lot is denied on those days, and an internal connection between the Intermediate Lot and the Employee Lot is opened so that public parking can overflow into the Employee Lot.

Occupancy counts in the Employee Lot in May and October 2007 are shown in Table 4-59. In each month, the lot peaked at 100 percent occupancy on one day, and the lot was more than 95 percent full on several days in May. Because employees are familiar with the system and generally create only low turnover in the lot, the cushion afforded employee facilities is usually five percent rather than the 10 percent common for public facilities.

Facility Requirements 4-61 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-59 PARKING OCCUPANCY - EMPLOYEE LOT May 2007 October 2007 Peak Percent Peak Percent Day Occupancy of 94 Occupancy of 94 1 83 88.3% 84 89.4% 2 84 89.4% 50 53.2% 3 90 95.7% 59 62.8% 4 91 96.8% 76 80.9% 5 65 69.1% 81 86.2% 6 81 86.2% 67 71.3% 7 89 94.7% 78 83.0% 8 86 91.5% 88 93.6% 9 94 100.0% 81 86.2% 10 93 98.9% 94 100.0% 11 86 91.5% 87 92.6% 12 64 68.1% 78 83.0% 13 73 77.7% 63 67.0% 14 87 92.6% 69 73.4% 15 81 86.2% 73 77.7% 16 91 96.8% 50 53.2% 17 87 92.6% 15 16.0% 18 90 95.7% 13 13.8% 19 69 73.4% 0 0.0% 20 73 77.7% 0 0.0% 21 87 92.6% 0 0.0% 22 83 88.3% 24 25.5% 23 81 86.2% 0 0.0% 24 80 85.1% 0 0.0% 25 79 84.0% 0 0.0% 26 59 62.8% 46 48.9% 27 69 73.4% 0 0.0% 28 70 75.5% 0 0.0% 29 76 80.9% 26 27.7% 30 71 75.5% 29 30.9% 31 83 88.3% 55 58.5% Yellow cells denote parking occupancy greater than 95 percent. A zero indicates the count system was not working on that day

Employee parking demand is estimated at 94 in the Employee Lot plus 25 using public lots for a total of 119. Adding a five percent cushion would result in a demand of 125 employee parking spaces. Relating this demand to 2007 enplanements yields a demand ratio of 0.41 spaces per 1,000 annual originating enplanements.

Table 4-60 contains the projections of employee parking demand through the planning period. The 2007 demand was approximately equal to supply, but there is a deficit of 26 spaces predicted for 2017, growing to a deficit of 69 spaces in 2027.

Facility Requirements 4-62 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-60 EMPLOYEE PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS

Parking Demand Projected Existing Surplus/ Year Ratio 1 Demand Supply 2, 3 (Deficit) CY 2007 0.41 124 119 (5) FY 2012 0.41 126 119 (7) FY 2017 0.41 145 119 (26) FY 2022 0.41 165 119 (46) FY 2027 0.41 188 119 (69) 1 Parking demand ration includes five percent cushion 2 Parking supply includes 94 spaces in employee lot plus 25 spaces regularly used by employees in the public parking lots. 3 Parking supply does not include the 150-space gravel lot.

Rental Car Ready/Return Spaces

In 2007, the rental car ready/return lot directly south of the terminal contained 97 spaces allocated as shown in Table 4-61.

Table 4-61 RENTAL CAR SPACES Rental Car Spaces Agency Avis 22 Budget 12 Enterprise 13 Hertz 27 National 23 Total 97

The 97-space rental car facility is about two-thirds of what the rental car managers see as ideal for the current operation, based on interviews with each agency. Each manager was asked to estimate the number of spaces needed for optimum conditions under today’s circumstances. The total came to 140 ready/return spaces. Each company’s desired number corresponded closely with the current allocation proportions.

According to the estimates provided by the managers, average monthly rental transactions range from 600 to 1,500, totaling approximately 5,000 altogether. Peak days experience about 250 returns and/or rentals. The total fleet inventory ranges from 900 to 1,300 depending on the season. All managers expressed a need for more spaces. The next most common concern about the existing facility was the awkward layout. It was characterized as inefficient, confusing, and occasionally somewhat dangerous for customers. Maneuvering space is limited and the one-way traffic flow confuses patrons. Vehicular access to spaces is difficult, especially for customers returning cars. Congestion at peaks, especially during pre-flight return periods, can quickly gridlock the lot.

Better security and improved graphics directing customers, once in the car, were mentioned by more than one manager. The majority would like covered parking within close walking distance from the terminal. It was also noted that space to provide customer service in the lot itself would be desirable. None of the companies expressed concern with operating their Quick-Turn-Around

Facility Requirements 4-63 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

(QTA) facilities remotely as they do now. There was no major opposition to the idea of a possible consolidated fueling and wash facility unless it was remote which was interpreted as a possible interference with effective customer service. None of the managers mentioned the cost of operating as an important criterion to be considered for any future development.

Although they are able to operate under the current conditions, all the rental car managers expressed the need for more space. All rental car parking lots include both ready and return spaces, but in the future, they may need to be separated, when the operation gets too large to handle both transactions in the same spaces. Although the managers expressed a desire for 140 spaces compared to the existing 97, our experience is that the balance between operating expenses, particularly the labor to shuttle cars back and forth, and the cost of leasing the ready/return spaces, usually results in fewer spaces being leased. Therefore, we estimate the 2007 need for ready/return spaces at 120. This is about 11 percent of the average fleet size (1,100).

Projections of the need for rental car ready/return spaces are shown in Table 4-62. As passenger traffic increases, it is projected that rental car transactions will increase at the same rate. Fleet sizes will grow and more spaces will be needed to accommodate the operation.

Table 4-62 RENTAL CAR READY/RETURN PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS

Existing Parking Ready/ Ready Approx. Approx. Demand Return Return Surplus/ Monthly Fleet Year Ratio 1 Demand Supply Deficit Contracts Size CY 2007 0.40 121 97 (24) 5,000 1,100 FY 2012 0.40 123 97 (26) 5,100 1,100 FY 2017 0.40 141 97 (44) 5,900 1,300 FY 2022 0.40 161 97 (64) 6,700 1,500 FY 2027 0.40 183 97 (86) 7,600 1,700 1 It is assumed that annual enplanements are approximately equal to deplanements

While there are certain economies in a small operation to utilize the same spaces for ready cars and returns, there is a point when congestion and operational difficulties necessitate separating the two functions. There is no predetermined point for this to occur, but it should become obvious when it is approached.

The rental car operation is already in need of expansion. By 2012, approximately 123 spaces will be needed to provide customers with an acceptable rental car service. This only addresses actual space needs for the vehicles. Office space, counter space, cleaning and fueling (QTA), and fleet storage space must also increase to accommodate the needs of a growing rental car operation. It is usually a delicate balance between the amount of space available, the amount of space companies want, and the amount of space they are willing to pay for that determines what the optimum space really turns out to be. Such a development will undoubtedly progress in phases in conjunction with other landside improvements.

The actual growth rate of rental car business compared to the passenger growth rate is contingent on the traffic mix (business vs. pleasure travel) and the actual expansion of the Chattanooga service area. For example, a large increase in business travel destined for the Atlanta area would probably grow rental car operations at a higher rate. High leisure travel would mean longer-term

Facility Requirements 4-64 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

rentals, which also affects the number of spaces needed. Such phenomena could require expansion on a different schedule than originally planned. Other factors, currently unknown, can greatly influence the accuracy of any projections made now. Rental-car company mergers, technological, or marketing innovations could remake the entire system. In any case, it is factual that expansion is needed now and that passenger-traffic growth projections indicate that further expansion will be necessary in the near future.

Ground Transportation

The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority has a detailed set of Commercial Ground Transportation Rules and Regulations under which all providers of such services must operate. These rules apply to all services from baggage delivery to courtesy vehicles, shared vans, limousines, taxicabs, and charter buses. All operators must possess a valid permit to pick up passengers at the Airport, which includes a quarterly fee (annual for buses). One-time operations by non-permitted companies are allowed for a fee as well. Specific operating areas are assigned for each type of service. Vehicle condition minimums and driver conduct requirements are listed in detail. The entire ground transportation network appears to be strongly controlled.

All ground transportation services operate on the terminal curbside drive in specifically assigned spaces. There are three loading spaces on the baggage claim curb and four staging spaces on the off-curb for taxicabs. Limousine/sedan services are assigned two spaces on the off-curb to stage and load. Shared vans and/or buses utilize two spaces on the off-curb closer to the ticketing wing of the terminal. Courtesy vehicles operate at the main terminal curb by the center entrance to the terminal building. Baggage delivery vehicles use a space across from the airline ticket counters. There is no remote staging area at this time.

Currently there are four cab companies with 17 vehicles permitted to operate at the Airport. Taxicabs average about fifty outbound trips a day. Four shared ride van companies with 20 permitted vehicles average forty trips a day. Four limousine/sedan operators have 15 permitted vehicles and average two trips a day per company. The six courtesy vehicles make about four trips each, about 24 a day.

Ground transportation is available to multiple points in the service area, encompassing portions of four states in addition to the immediate Chattanooga metropolitan area. Locations outside the immediate area are usually served on a charter or pre-reserved basis only.

Assuming ground transportation usage will grow at the same rate as enplanements, daily commercial vehicle trips should reach the levels shown in Table 4-63. By 2027, traffic generated by the three most frequently used ground transportation operations will be in the neighborhood of 170 trips per day. These figures are based on the current estimates of daily trips with passengers from the Airport. An almost equal number of trips inbound to the Airport with passengers should also be expected. Luxury transportation will also add a few more trips each day.

Facility Requirements 4-65 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-63 DAILY COMMERCIAL VEHICLE TRIPS

Shared Courtesy Year Taxicab Van Van Total CY 2007 50 40 24 114 FY 2012 50 40 24 114 FY 2017 57 46 28 131 FY 2022 65 52 31 149 FY 2027 74 59 36 170

Due to the nature of airline traffic, inbound trips do not necessarily correlate with a contiguous outbound trip with arriving passengers. There will be several “deadhead” trips when an empty vehicle leaves the Airport to provide services elsewhere or to pick up more Airport bound passengers. Late in the day, there will also be empty inbound trips as vehicles come in to serve arriving flights without bringing in departing passengers. All these trips add to traffic and possible congestion.

By taking the existing number of spaces on the curbside assigned to various ground transportation users and extrapolating future space needs based on the rate of growth shown above, it appears that the existing curbside soon will not be able to handle peak periods. By 2027, at least four additional spaces will be needed to accommodate commercial transportation adequately. For passenger convenience, these spaces should be in the baggage claim area. It is reported that this area of the curb is already too congested during peak flight arrivals. With the projected growth, this space will be even more in demand. Local residents in their private vehicles, also in increasing numbers, will be vying for the same space. It is difficult for Airport management to limit use of this space by “taxpayers” and turn it over to taxis and vans. The space needs will escalate annually with the increase in passengers, worsening the congestion problem.

By 2027, a remote staging area should be established for commercial ground transportation vehicles. No staging with the exception of one or two cabs would be accommodated on the curb. By turning the existing spaces at curbside currently used for staging into loading spaces, ground transportation operations can continue on the curb initially. Gaining access to the curb during high traffic periods then becomes the problem. When a cab cannot get through the traffic jam to get to the customer, the service is not adequate. The next logical step would be to separate the commercial ground transportation traffic from the public by establishing a commercial transportation only operating area.

Terminal curbs are defined by the length of the terminal and width of how many lanes are provided. Extending the curb past the terminal boundaries would make more curb space, but at decreasing convenience, hence value, as the distance from the terminal doorways increases. Likewise, widening the roadway by adding more lanes introduces another set of inconveniences as lane upon lane fill with waiting vehicles. Passengers have difficulty finding their ride and risk injury threading through several lanes of cars. Extending the curb by creating a separate curbside for ground transportation, at the end of the building for example, not only eases traffic, it increases efficiency and customer convenience. A ground transportation service center with a free flowing traffic pattern and 20 to 25 loading spaces would serve the expected volume of passengers in future years quite efficiently.

Facility Requirements 4-66 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Two factors of the expected growth, larger aircraft and the “regional service” affect of low cost carriers, will influence the ground transportation operation. Larger aircraft will increase curbside congestion as more vehicles, both commercial and private, arrive to transport the larger number of passengers present during the peak period. More vehicles will be competing for the same space at the same time. A wider region of service will attract additional transportation services to these areas, especially if a viable market develops. Such additional service may even be a new type of service, like a scheduled bus, which would add another variable into the ground transportation mix. Increased demand for ground transportation services like shared vans will encourage more competitors to enter the market and existing operators to increase their fleets or perhaps operate larger vehicles. Conversely, with more concentrated passenger arrivals, load factors on existing shared vans will increase allowing more passengers to be served with little or no initial increase in vehicular traffic.

Parking Supply/Demand Summary

Given the foregoing information, logic and assumptions, Table 4-64 presents a summary of the parking supply and demand analysis for 2007 and for the target years throughout the planning horizon.

Table 4-64 PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND SUMMARY

Public Parking Employee Parking Rental Ready/Return Total Projected Existing Supply/ Projected Existing Supply/ Projected Existing Supply/ Projected Existing Supply/ Year Demand Supply (Deficit) Demand Supply (Deficit) Demand Supply (Deficit) Demand Supply (Deficit) CY 2007 1,228 1,107 (121) 124 119 (5) 121 97 (24) 1,473 1,323 (150) FY 2012 1,247 1,107 (140) 126 119 (7) 123 97 (26) 1,496 1,323 (173) FY 2017 1,435 1,107 (328) 145 119 (26) 141 97 (44) 1,720 1,323 (397) FY 2022 1,635 1,107 (528) 165 119 (46) 161 97 (64) 1,961 1,323 (638) FY 2027 1,864 1,107 (757) 188 119 (69) 183 97 (86) 2,235 1,323 (912)

Review of Table 4-64 confirms that the parking situation at Chattanooga in 2007 was in a deficit situation by approximately 150 spaces. Each category of parking – public, employee, and rental car – had a shortage of spaces needed to operate in an efficient manner. The deficit of parking will grow throughout the planning period in correlation to the projected growth in enplanements. Note that public parking may grow at an accelerated rate due to the growth in low cost carrier operations.

A plan should be developed to produce at least 200 net new spaces by 2012, 400 net new spaces by 2017, and 920 net new spaces by 2027. Likewise, there will be a growing need for curbfront space, a ground transportation staging area, and/or a separate ground transportation center.

The parking requirements for each of the user groups listed above can be translated into the number of acres that will be required for each type of parking as shown in Table 4-65.

Facility Requirements 4-67 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-65 PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN ACRES Units 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Public Parking Demand Demand spaces 1,205 1,247 1,435 1,635 1,864 Demand acres 9.7 10.0 11.5 13.1 15.0 Existing acres 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 Surplus/(Deficit) acres (0.8) (1.1) (2.6) (4.2) (6.1) Rental Car Demand spaces 118 123 141 161 183 Demand acres 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.5 Existing acres 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Surplus/(Deficit) acres (0.2) (0.2) (0.4) (0.5) (0.7) Employee Parking Demand spaces 121 126 145 165 188 Demand acres 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 Existing acres 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 Surplus/(Deficit) acres (0.2) (0.2) (0.4) (0.5) (0.7) Total Parking Demand spaces 1,445 1,496 1,720 1,961 2,235 Demand acres 11.6 12.0 13.8 15.8 18.0 Existing acres 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 Surplus/(Deficit) acres (1.2) (1.6) (3.4) (5.3) (7.5)

Currently the Airport has approximately 10.5 acres of land devoted to parking, excluding the gravel 150-space parking lot. It is calculated that approximately 1.2 additional acres of parking are needed today. By the year 2027, it is anticipated that approximately 18 acres of parking will be required or 7.5 more acres than currently exists today. This would be an increase of approximately 70 percent over the existing.

Facility Requirements 4-68 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

4.9 SUMMARY OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

This section provides a tabular summary of the facility requirements for the Airport facilities covered in this chapter. This summary is Table 4-66.

Table 4-66 SUMMARY OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Facility Existing Capacity Recommendation

Runway Length Runway 02-20 is currently 7,401 Runway 02-20 should be extended feet in length. Runway 15-33 is to at least 8,600 feet. Runway 15- currently 5,575 feet in length 33 has recently been extended. No further extension is recommended for Runway 15-33 within the planning period.

Gates The commercial service passenger When peak hour flights exceed terminal has six gates. five, additional gates should be added to equal the peak hour flights plus one gate.

Total Terminal Building Area Existing terminal building has The total building square foot area approximately 130,060 square feet. should be able to accommodate comfortably up to approximately 362,000 annual enplanements.

Number of Departure Lounges Existing terminal currently has six The existing total area of departure departure lounges with a total of lounges will hold approximately 10,860 square feet. 466 Total Peak Hour Passengers.

Check-in Facilities Existing check-in facilities consist of The total area of check-in facilities approximately 2,485 ft2. The and queue is adequate to passenger queuing area occupies accommodate the expected approximately 3,005 ft2 for a total of number of passengers throughout 5,490 ft2. the planning period.

Baggage Claim The existing baggage claim has two Before 143 Peak Hour Deplaning baggage claim devices with a total Passengers is achieved, an presentation length of 200 lineal additional 100-foot long baggage feet. claim device will be required.

Passenger Security Screening The existing passenger security- Two passenger security screening Checkpoint screening checkpoint has one checkpoint lanes are required screening position. today. Three passenger security screening checkpoint lanes will be required when Peak 20-minute Enplaning Passengers reaches 200 passengers.

Table 4-66 continued on next page

Facility Requirements 4-69 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-66 (continued) SUMMARY OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Facility Existing Capacity Recommendation

Federal Inspection Facilities None FIS facilities are sized by Peak Hour (FIS) International Deplaning Passengers, usually in units of 100. It is anticipated that if a facility were required that it would be sized for 200 Peak Hour International Deplaning Passengers.

Terminal Curbs The existing terminal departure The departure curb will need another curb, arrival curb and commercial 60 feet of length when the Peak 20- curb have effective lengths of 260, minute Enplaning Passengers 200 and 250 lineal feet reaches 200. The arrival curb has respectively. sufficient capacity for the entire planning period. The commercial curbs will need another 90 feet when the Peak 20-minute Deplaning Passengers reaches 140.

Conventional Hangars and Currently, there are 175,000 ft2 of When the total number of based Aprons conventional hangar space. aircraft reaches 131, it is expected that there will be a need for 187,800 ft2 of hangars and 20,900 square yards (yd2) of adjacent apron.

T-Hangars and Aprons Currently, there are 23 T-hangars When the number of total based with 24,200 ft2 of area and 2,690 aircraft reaches 122, there will be a yd2 of adjacent apron area. need for 25 T-hangars.

Itinerant Aircraft Parking There are 13 tie-down spaces for There is currently a need for 37 itinerant aircraft. These occupy itinerant aircraft tie-down spaces. approximately 12,350 yd2 of apron. When the total number of itinerant general aviation operations reaches 45,300, 39 itinerant tie- down areas will be required.

FBO Facilities The FBO currently occupies The area currently occupied is approximately 18,500 ft2 of offices, considered sufficient to meet the pilot facilities, and general aviation needs of the current FBO terminal. throughout the planning period.

Air Cargo The existing air cargo buildings The 22,400 ft2 is sufficient to meet have approximately 22,400 ft2 of the projected air cargo demand, which 7,500 ft2 are currently used but the condition of the space will for air cargo related activities. require rehabilitation.

Table 4-66 continued on next page

Facility Requirements 4-70 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 4-66 (continued) SUMMARY OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Facility Existing Capacity Recommendation

Fuel Storage Commercially available fuel is Current Jet A fuel capacity should currently stored in: be sufficient through 84,200 total  Two 20,000 gal. Jet A fuel tanks annual operations. One additional  Two 15.000 gal. Jet A fuel tanks 20,000-gallon fuel tank for Jet A  One 15,000 gal. Avgas fuel tank fuel should provide capacity  One 1,000 gal. diesel fuel tank through the planning period.  One 10,000 gal. Mogas fuel tank

Terminal Roadways The portion of the Terminal Loop An additional lane should be Road with the lowest capacity is the added to the Terminal Loop Road single lane between the prior to the total peak hour intermediate-term and short-term passengers reaching 345 parking lots with an hourly capacity passengers. of approximately 450 vehicles per hour.

Public Parking There are currently 1,228 spaces in An additional 200 public parking the public parking lots including the spaces should be added before new gravel lot. the Annual Enplaned Passengers reaches 306,500. With the 352,500 Annual Enplaned Passengers, 1,435 public parking spaces will be needed. With 457,900 Annual Enplaned Passengers, 1,864 public parking spaces will be required.

Rental Car Parking There are currently 97 spaces in the There is a current need for 121 rental car ready/return lot rental car ready/return spaces. With 306,500 Annual Enplaned Passengers, this demand will grow to 123 spaces. With 457,900 Annual Enplaned Passengers, 183 ready/return spaces will be needed.

Employee Car Parking There are currently 119 employee There is a current need for an parking spaces additional 24 employee parking spaces. With 306,500 Annual Enplaned Passengers, 126 employee parking spaces will be required and with 457,900 Annual Enplanements, 188 employee parking spaces will be required.

Facility Requirements 4-71 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

CHAPTER 5 DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter identifies and evaluates development alternatives for the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport that will satisfy the facility requirements outlined in the previous chapter, satisfy the strategic objectives and goals of the Airport Authority, and adhere to safe operational standards set by the FAA and the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority. The resulting Airport Development Plan combines all recommended improvements with the existing facilities into a cohesive plan. This plan will enable the Airport Authority to move forward in a thoughtful, efficient manner that will ensure the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport remains a leading transportation venue in the region for the next twenty years. The development and evaluation of alternatives for the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is presented in the following sections of this chapter:

 Development and Evaluation of Alternatives Process  Identification of Airport Element Alternatives  Airport Development Concepts  Evaluation of Alternatives  Recommended Alternative

One of the critical determinations in the development of alternatives is that of the acceptable boundaries for development. Is it acceptable to plan outside of the current boundaries of the Airport, as it exists today? Is it acceptable to plan outside of current leases within the Airport boundaries? The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority has determined that it is acceptable to indicate expansion outside of the current Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport boundaries as long as it is done with the expectation that the Airport intends to expand through opportunity, when and if properties become available. On Airport property, the Authority determined that long-term leases, especially those of the current Fixed Base Operator, TAC Air, would be honored to prevent adversely affecting the FBO or its tenants. As the leases with TAC Air are not scheduled to expire until after the twenty years of this Master Plan Update, this means that these parcels of land will not be encroached upon for purposes of Airport development within this Master Plan Update. Adoption of these determinations has an important impact on the potential alternatives for the development of the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, particularly the passenger terminal area.

The development of alternatives also takes into consideration the issues identified in Chapter One, Public Involvement, as well as the comments and considerations brought forward during meetings with the User’s Group, the Technical Advisory Committee, and the Public Information Workshop. The Airport staff identified the following areas of focus prior to the commencement of the Master Plan Update:

 Air Cargo  General Aviation Development  Airport Parking

These issues were reviewed with the Technical Advisory Committee in September of 2007 and additional issues were identified and consolidated with the preliminary list. This resulted in the following list of issues, which were later re-stated as measurable criteria:

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-1 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

 Provide realistic parking solutions to provide sufficient passenger vehicular parking.  Develop a consolidated efficient plan for general aviation activities that will allow the maximum potential for growth, while not adversely affecting other Airport activities.  Determine and evaluate the prospects for cargo expansion at the Airport and develop plans for the conditions and resources required to attract significant cargo operations.  Create a plan for the Airport to remain an efficient user-friendly airport, while implementing capacity to meet aviation demands and the needs of the community to the year 2026.  Provide clear justification of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects.  Create a CIP that identifies funded projects, unfunded projects, priorities, and potential sources of funds.  Meet FAA design, safety, and security standards for the entire Airport.  Provide enhanced aesthetics at the entrances to the Airport.  Provide aesthetic buffers between the Airport and the Brainerd Community.  Provide an observation area where the public can watch the air traffic.

5.2 DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES PROCESS

There are a number of elements to an Airport, which include the runways, terminals, general aviation facilities, and other areas. The elements that have been studied as part of the Master Plan Update process include the following:

 Airfield Improvements  Commercial Service Passenger Terminal and Parking Complex  Second Fixed Base Operator (FBO)  Conventional Hangars  T-Hangars  Air Cargo  Maintenance Center  Airport Business Park  Greenways  Enhanced Airport Entrances

Alternatives were developed for the majority of the elements. After development, the alternatives were evaluated in a largely subjective manner to eliminate those that did not meet the facility requirements, did not allow efficient operations, or were not suitably situated on the Airport. The results are a smaller number of alternatives for each element that best address the issues of that element.

The remaining elements were then combined into three Airport Development Concepts. On May 11, 2009, the Airport Development Concepts were presented to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Users Group for input and comments. The three Airport Development Concepts were also presented to the public in the First Public Information Workshop. At each meeting, the participants were updated on the progress of the study and were shown the Airport Development Alternatives for the long-term, 20-year development of the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. Comments from the public and each of the committees were solicited. Meeting minutes of the

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-2 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Technical Advisory Committee and the User’s Group can be found in Appendix B. Written comments from the Public Information Workshop can also be found in Appendix B. After reviewing the comments received from the TAC, the User’s Group, and the public, as well as evaluating the alternatives, a Recommended Alternative was selected.

5.3 IDENTIFICATION OF AIRPORT ELEMENT ALTERNATIVES

This section looks at the alternatives that were developed for the various elements of the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. Each of the alternatives was then subjectively evaluated and a few of the alternatives were eliminated. The remaining alternatives were advanced for further consideration and evaluation.

5.3.1 Airfield Improvements

The airfield consists of those elements such as taxiways and runways that allow aircraft to move around the Airport. Improvements to the airfield make the operations of the aircraft and the Airport safer and more efficient.

Extension of Runway 02 and Taxiway A

The 2001 Master Plan Update studied the extension of Runway 02/20 in detail. It concluded that the extension of the runway from its current 7,401 feet to 9,000 feet could be accomplished by adding 800 feet to the northern or 20 end of the runway. An additional 800 feet on the southern or 02 end of the runway was labeled “potential future extension.”

The northern extension was shown with a displaced threshold of 800 feet that would have allowed the additional 800 feet on the northern end to be used for departures, but arriving aircraft would use the existing touchdown point. In addition, declared distances were proposed that would make the northern 800-foot extension unavailable for Runway 02 (northbound) arrivals and departures. The combination of the displaced threshold and the declared distances would not require the relocation of either Airport Road or the CSX rail line to the north of the Airport.

The runway length of 9,000 feet of the 2001 Master Plan Update was predicated on the use of the Boeing 727-200 aircraft as the critical aircraft at the Airport. Today, that aircraft is rarely if ever used at the Airport as discussed in the Facility Requirements chapter and the MD-80 aircraft was determined to be the critical aircraft. Analysis discussed in the Facility Requirements chapter indicated that Runway 02/20 should be extended to at least 8,600 feet to accommodate the MD-80 aircraft; an extension of 1,199 feet from the current runway length of 7,401 feet.

The 2001 Master Plan Update determined that the preferred extension alternative would have been to extend both the northern and southern ends of Runway 02 by 800 feet. While the runway extensions on each end could have been located on Airport land, the Runway Safety Area (RSA) and the Object Free Area (OFA) would have required the relocation of the railroad line and Airport Road on the northern end and the relocation of five businesses on the southern end to avoid the extended OFA and RSAs.

However, with the reduction of the Runway 02/20 extension from 1,600 feet to 1,200 feet; the runway, Taxiway A, and the runway’s RSA’s and both the runway and taxiway’s OFA’s can all be accommodated to the south on current Airport property with the exception of five commercial properties located on the north side of Lee Highway/Brainerd Road. These properties would have

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-3 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update to be purchased and the buildings demolished. This is shown in Figure 5-1. Runway 02/20 currently has declared distances as shown in Table 5-1.

Figure 5-1 AIRFIELD IMPROVEMENTS

Table 5-1 EXISTING RUNWAY DECLARED DISTANCES

Runway Existing Declared Distances 02 20 15 33 Takeoff Run Available (TORA) 7,400 7,400 5,575 5,470 Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) 7,400 7,400 5,575 5,470 Accelerate-Stop Distance Available (ASDA) 7,200 7,400 5,575 5,470 Landing Distance Available (LDA) 7,200 7,400 5,470 5,000

With the proposed extension, the declared distances would remain with the results shown in Table 5-2.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-4 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 5-2 PROPOSED RUNWAY DECLARED DISTANCES Runway Proposed Declared Distances 02 20 15 33 Takeoff Run Available (TORA) 8,600 8,600 5,575 5,470 Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) 8,600 8,600 5,575 5,470 Accelerate-Stop Distance Available (ASDA) 8,600 8,600 5,575 5,470 Landing Distance Available (LDA) 8,400 7,201 5,470 5,000

Extension of Taxiway H

The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport currently has one full-length parallel taxiway to the primary runway, Runway 02/20. Taxiway A is located on the eastern side of the runway. Taxiway H also runs parallel to Runway 02/20, but on the western side of the runway. It does not yet run the full length of the runway. An extension of approximately 500 feet to the north would provide access from the western development area to the Runway 20 end as shown in Figure 5-1.

Widening of Taxiway K and the North GA Apron

Additional airfield improvements include the widening of Taxiway K, which accesses Runway 02/20 from the northern FBO apron. Taxiway K is only 50 feet wide. Taxiways associated with ARC D IV runways such as Runway 02/20 require taxiways of at least 75 feet in width.

By expanding the northern FBO apron, as shown in Figure 5-1, apron edge Taxiway B can be extended to meet Taxiway K. This will result in more operational flexibility with respect to Runway 02/20.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-5 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

5.3.2 Legend of Alternatives

For convenience in locating the remaining alternatives on the Airport, a graphic presentation of the potential development sites was developed that shows where each of the following alternatives is located.

Figure 5-2 LOCATION OF ALTERNATIVES

5.3.3 Commercial Service Passenger Terminal and Parking Complex

The commercial service passenger terminal for the most part has adequate capacity to meet the requirements of the next twenty years, with the following exceptions:

 A second lane for the security-screening checkpoint is needed today and a third one will be needed when peak 20-minute enplaning passengers reaches 200 passengers.  When peak hour flights exceed five flights, additional gates will be required equal to the peak hour departing flights plus one gate. It is anticipated that this will result in the need for an additional three gates within the next twenty years  The existing departure lounges will hold approximately 465 total peak hour passengers. When this number is approached, additional lounge area should be added.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-6 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

 A third baggage claim device will be needed when peak hour deplaning passengers reach about 145 passengers. The additional baggage claim device will probably require an addition to the baggage claim wing of the terminal.  The departure curb will need another 60 lineal feet of length when the peak 20-minute enplaning passengers reach 200.  The commercial curbs will need another 70 lineal feet of length when the peak 20-minute deplaning passengers reach 140 passengers.

Because of the close proximity of the commercial service passenger terminal to the public, rental car, and employee parking, and because of the limited areas available to expand, the parking element and the terminal roads element have been combined with the terminal element when considering alternatives. The requirements for the roadway and parking elements are as follows:  An additional lane of terminal roadway needs to be added to that section which is currently only one lane wide before the number of peak-hour passengers reach 345.  By the end of the twenty-year planning period an additional 1,864 public parking spaces will be needed.  An additional 86 rental car ready/return parking spaces will be required within twenty-years  An additional 69 employee parking spaces will be required within twenty years. The first terminal/parking element developed, Terminal/Parking Alternative One, is presented in Figure 5-3.

Figure 5-3 TERMINAL/PARKING ALTERNATIVE ONE

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-7 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Terminal/Parking Alternative One shows an extension of the existing aircraft gate concourse to accommodate at least four additional gates. The baggage claim wing of the terminal has been extended to accommodate the additional baggage claim unit. An extra lane has been added to the roadway system where currently there is only one lane.

The parking garage is anticipated to accommodate all of the ready and return spaces for the rental cars and approximately 1,240 public parking spaces. These would be accommodated on three levels including the ground level. Adjacent to the parking garage would be placed a Quick-Turn- Around (QTA) facility in order that the rental cars companies can quickly wash, vacuum, and fuel their returning vehicles.

Terminal/Parking Alternative Two shows a reconfiguration of the terminal where the current check- in wing of the terminal is relocated to run parallel with the baggage claim wing on the northern side of the existing terminal rotunda. By relocating the check-in wing in this way, the terminal roadway loop can also be realigned so that more parking surface is included within the loop and, more importantly, that the roadway itself can be lengthened to allow more distance between decision points and lengthen the terminal curb. The re-aligned roadway allows for future expansion of the entire terminal and terminal area to the north beyond the planning period of this Master Plan should that be desired.

However, the re-alignment of the check-in wing would also necessitate the re-alignment of the passenger concourse as shown in Figure 5-4, as the distance between the re-aligned check-in wing and the existing passenger concourse would not have enough room to allow the requisite number and size of aircraft to park and maneuver between the two. The realignment of the passenger concourse would; however, allow approximately six gates to be added to the existing six gates, two more than Terminal/Parking Alternative One.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-8 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 5-4 TERMINAL/PARKING ALTERNATIVE TWO

After attending the User’s Group, TAC meetings, and the Public Information Workshop, as well as reviewing the written comments received, it was determined that a third Terminal/Parking Alternative should be developed. It is similar to Terminal/Parking Alternative One in that the passenger concourse would be extended to accommodate four additional gates, the baggage claim wing would be expanded to accommodate an additional baggage claim device, and the terminal roadway loop has been widened in strategic areas to relieve some of the current bottlenecks, as shown in Figure 5-5. Terminal/Parking Alternative Three also extends the terminal loop roadway in a manner similar to Terminal/Parking Alternative Two, but does not realign either the concourse or the check-in wing. Rather, the check-in wing is shortened somewhat in recognition of the reduced role that the check-in hall is expected to have in the future. The elongated roadway circles back beneath the new parking garage to rejoin the existing terminal loop road providing additional curb length within the garage.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-9 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 5-5 TERMINAL/PARKING ALTERNATIVE THREE

The parking garage would be relocated in Terminal/Parking Alternative Three to the current location of the Interim and employee parking lots. This location was determined based on the desire to avoid blocking the view of the terminal.

The ground level of the parking garage would contain ready and return parking for the rental car companies. The baggage make-up and baggage security screening, as well as a reduced check- in area would also be placed on the ground level as shown in Figure 5-6. The parking garage would require three levels of parking including the ground floor and roof top parking. In addition, the remaining area of the current rental car ready and return parking lot would be utilized for employee parking. The QTA’s of the on-Airport rental car companies would be consolidated and located south of the Shepherd Road Airport Entrance ramps.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-10 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 5-6 TERMINAL/PARKING ALTERNATIVE THREE GROUND LEVEL

An essential part of this alternative would be to design the façade of the parking garage to reflect in every detail the façade of the existing terminal. The parking garage must look as if it is and was always intended to be a part of the existing terminal.

This terminal/parking alternative will solve a majority if not all of the Airport’s terminal and parking issues:

 The concourse could be extended for at least four additional gates  The baggage claim area could be expanded to allow the addition of another baggage claim device  There would be enough capacity in the existing check-in wing that shortening it would not adversely affect operations.  This alternative would lengthen the terminal curb with a departure curb in the parking garage.  The garage and extended curb length could also allow the early adoption of new technologies that would decrease the processing time and thus the space required for passenger and baggage check-in. These emerging technologies and practices could include self-service, remote baggage check-in within the garage.  Enough capacity could be built into the parking garage to accommodate the forecast for the next twenty years of public and rental car ready and return parking requirements.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-11 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

There are also some drawbacks to Terminal/Planning Alternative Three:

 The location of the parking garage would not allow equal service to the arriving and departing passengers; arriving passengers would have to travel a greater distance from the baggage claim to the parking garage.  It is expected that the rental car companies would be asked to participate in the building of the new parking garage and that their ready/return cars would be parked on the ground level of the parking garage. The rental-car companies typically want their customers to walk no more than 300 feet from the exit of the rental-car counter area to the furthest parking space. This issue could be resolved by placing the rental car counters in the garage as well  This alternative would not measurably take away from the number of vehicles passing in front of the terminal. Except for those vehicles parking in the existing long- and short-term surface lots, all vehicles entering the terminal area would at some point have to pass in front of the terminal.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-12 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

5.3.4 Second Fixed Base Operator

Currently, there is only one Fixed Base Operator (FBO) at Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, TAC Air. TAC Air has been at the Airport for many years and has a long-term lease with the Airport. Increasingly, the Airport is being asked to provide competition in many areas of its operation, including the services provided by an FBO. As a result, alternatives were developed to provide an area for a second FBO operation at the Airport.

FBO Alternative One would be located on the western side of the Airport just south of the Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facility, as shown in Figure 5-7. This alternative would have the FBO accessed from Jubilee Drive and would have a combination of T-hangars, conventional hangars and apron space suitable for itinerant and based aircraft tie-down areas in addition to a fuel farm. This alternative would provide two conventional hangars with a total of approximately 24,000 square feet of area, 16 T-hangars, and about 18,300 square yards of apron of which at least 7,700 square yards are aircraft tie-down areas. Approximately a third of the apron area required has already been built by the Airport and is accessible to Runway 02/20 and Runway 15/33 via Taxiway H.

Figure 5-7 FBO ALTERNATIVE ONE

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-13 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

FBO Alternative Two would also be located west of Runway 02/20, but it would be located immediately north of the U.S. Forestry Service Area, which is located immediately north of the ARFF facility. This alternative would also have the second FBO area accessed from Jubilee Drive. It would have exclusively conventional hangars, as well as a fuel farm as shown in Figure 5-8. There would be three conventional hangars with approximately 50,400 square feet of area and approximately 4,400 square feet of office area. The apron tie-down area of approximately 5,700 square yards would be limited, but this area would also be accessible to both runways from Taxiway H.

Figure 5-8 FBO ALTERNATIVE TWO

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-14 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

FBO Alternative Three would be located on the east side of Runway 02/20 as shown in Figure 5-9 in the area currently occupied by the Tennessee Air National Guard (TANG), who has indicated that they will be leaving the Airport within the next five years or so. This alternative also would have a combination of approximately 42,000 square feet of conventional hangars, 21 T-hangars, approximately 27,000 square yards of apron space for aircraft tie-down areas, and a fuel farm. Either Runway 02/20 or Runway 15/33 would be accessed via Taxiways A, B, and C. The FBO would be reached from Airport Road via Rosedale Drive and Pinehurst Avenue.

Figure 5-9 FBO ALTERNATIVE THREE

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-15 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

FBO Alternative Four would be located in the same area of the Airport as FBO Alternative One, on the west side of Runway 02/20, south of the ARFF facility. But, this alternative would have a different configuration and mix of facilities. It would still have a fuel farm and on-site parking, but unlike FBO Alternative One, it would have no T-hangars and only 8,700 square yards of aircraft tie- down area. It would have eight conventional hangars with a total of 97,800 square feet of area and approximately 8,000 square feet of office area as shown in Figure 5-10.

Figure 5-10 FBO ALTERNATIVE FOUR

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-16 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

5.3.5 Conventional Hangars

At Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, it has been identified that approximately 53,300 square feet of additional conventional hangar space and approximately 5,900 square yards of associated apron will be needed within the next twenty years. This section addresses the alternatives that would potentially fill that need.

Conventional Hangar Alternative One would be located on the site of the existing air cargo area; east of Runway 02/20 and just west of the FAA air traffic control tower. It would have two conventional hangars of approximately 22,500 square feet each and a third hangar of approximately 33,000 square feet. The existing air cargo apron consists of approximately 28,000 square yards of pavement that is in poor condition. This alternative would require a rehabilitation of the existing apron as shown in Figure 5-11. There is also a drainage issue in this area of the Airport and drainage remediation would have to be considered into the cost of this alternative. There is currently sufficient access to the site from Pinehurst Avenue as well as vehicular parking. The vehicular parking will probably need to be rehabilitated when the conventional hangars are constructed however.

Figure 5-11 CONVENTIONAL HANGARS ALTERNATIVE ONE

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-17 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Conventional Hangar Alternative Two would also be located on the east side of Runway 02/20 near the current 02 Runway end. This alternative would have two conventional hangars of approximately 22,500 square feet each and a third hangar of approximately 15,000 square feet. The existing aircraft apron of approximately 9,000 square yards is in good condition and would serve the two 22,500 square foot hangars. Additional aircraft apron of approximately 3,750 square yards would need to be built to serve the third hangar as shown in Figure 5-12. Vehicular parking and some access road would also need to be constructed as part of this alternative.

Figure 5-12 CONVENTIONAL HANGARS ALTERNATIVE TWO

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-18 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Conventional Hangars Alternative Three would be located on the east side of Runway 02/20 and further south than Conventional Hangars Alternative Two. It would be located on the site of the former Target store. This site is strategically located near the intersection of Brainerd Road and Jubilee Drive.

This alternative would have two conventional hangars of approximately 22,500 square feet each as shown in Figure 5-13. There is currently no aircraft apron in this location and approximately 11,100 square yards of apron would have to be constructed. Taxiway A would have to be extended south to meet the new apron for it to have access to the airfield. It is expected that when Runway 02/20 is extended that Taxiway A would also be extended. In that event, only a short taxiway stub would be required to reach Taxiway A.

Portions of the former Target store parking lot would serve as vehicular parking for these hangars, but the pavement might need some rehabilitation. Access is proposed to be from Jubilee Drive.

Figure 5-13 CONVENTIONAL HANGARS ALTERNATIVE THREE

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-19 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Conventional Hangars Alternative Four would be located west of Runway 02/20 and north of the U.S. Forestry Service complex. It would provide approximately 50,400 square feet of hangar space between three hangars and approximately 10,800 square yards of apron. There would also be approximately 4,500 square feet of attached office space. A taxilane of approximately 500 lineal feet would lead to Taxiway H. New vehicular parking would be provided and access would occur off Jubilee Drive as shown in Figure 5-14.

Figure 5-14 CONVENTIONAL HANGARS ALTERNATIVE FOUR

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-20 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Conventional Hangars Alternative Five would be located in approximately the same location as Conventional Hangar Alternative Two, on the east side of Runway 02/20, near the current Runway 02 end. This alternative would concentrate additional conventional hangars into the vicinity. However, with a total of approximately 142,000 square feet of conventional hangar space, and approximately 270,000 square yards of new apron. A new taxiway of approximately 800 lineal feet would lead from Taxiway A to three hangars located behind the row of hangars that would run parallel to Runway 02/20 as shown in Figure 5-15. New vehicular parking would be constructed with this alternative along with some access roads. Two of the hangars along with much of the associated apron, vehicular parking, and access road are shown located on land that is not currently owned by the Airport. The cost to purchase this land would have to be considered into the cost of this alternative.

Figure 5-15 CONVENTIONAL HANGARS ALTERNATIVE FIVE

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-21 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Conventional Hangars Alternative Six would be located in the northwest corner of the Airport at the intersection of Runways 02/20 and 15/33 as shown in Figure 5-16. This alternative would provide two conventional hangars of approximately 22,500 square feet each and associated aircraft apron of approximately 17,500 square yards. An approximately 600-foot long taxiway would lead to Taxiway D and another approximately 400 foot long taxiway would lead to Runway 02/20. Vehicular parking would be provided, as well as an access road to Lovell Field Loop Road.

Figure 5-16 CONVENTIONAL HANGARS ALTERNATIVE SIX

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-22 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

5.3.6 T-Hangars

Eight T-hangars and approximately 1,000 square yards of additional apron will be required within the twenty-year planning period. Alternatives developed to address this need are presented in this section.

T-Hangars Alternative One would be located in the same area as Conventional Hangars Alternative Six; the northeast corner of the intersection of Runways 15/33 and 02/20. As shown Figure 5-17, this alternative would provide approximately 40 T-hangar units within five buildings. An approximately 750-foot long taxiway from the T-hangar area would provide access to Taxiway D. Vehicular access to the site would be provided off Lovell Field Loop Road and parking would be provided adjacent to the aircraft apron.

Figure 5-17 T-HANGARS ALTERNATIVE ONE

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-23 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

T-Hangars Alternative Two would be located on the west side of Runway 02/20 north of the U.S. Forestry Service location. As shown in Figure 5-18, this alternative would provide approximately 23 T-hangar units within three buildings. The T-hangars would be accessed from Taxiway H via a taxiway of approximately 300 feet in length. Vehicular parking would be provided adjacent to the associated aircraft apron and would be accessed via Jubilee Drive.

Figure 5-18 T-HANGARS ALTERNATIVE TWO

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-24 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

T-Hangars Alternative Three would be located on the east side of Runway 02/20 at the current Runway 02 end. As shown in Figure 5-19, approximately 40 T-hangars would ultimately be provided in five buildings. Access to Taxiway A would be provided via a new taxiway of approximately 600 feet in length. Vehicular parking is not addressed in this alternative but could be added on adjacent property depending on other development planned for the area.

Figure 5-19 T-HANGARS ALTERNATIVE THREE

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-25 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

T-Hangars Alternative Four would be located east of Runway 02/20 and east of the current air cargo area adjacent to and south of the FAA air traffic control tower. As shown in Figure 5-20, ultimately approximately 40 T-hangars housed in five buildings would be provided. Access to the aircraft apron and then to Taxiway A would be provided via a new taxiway of approximately 100 feet in length. Vehicular parking would not be provided in this alternative as shown, but could be added on adjacent parcels of land depending on other development in the area. Vehicular access to the area would be made from Pinehurst Avenue. As shown, this alternative would also require the acquisition of additional land to the south. If necessary, each of the T-hangar buildings could be reduced in length to contain only 6 units apiece for 30 T-hangars, which would fulfill the facility requirements for additional T-hangars for the next twenty years

Figure 5-20 T-HANGARS ALTERNATIVE FOUR

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-26 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

T-Hangars Alternative Five would be located on the same parcel of land as T-Hangars Alternative Four. However, the buildings would be rotated 90 degrees to better fit onto the property that Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport currently owns. As shown in Figure 5-21, approximately 26 T- hangar units would be built in two buildings although ultimately as many as 39 T-hangars could possibly be built with the addition of a third 13-unit building. Access to Taxiway A would be made with the addition of a new taxiway of approximately 250 lineal feet to the current air cargo aircraft apron and then on to Taxiway A. Vehicular access would be from Pinehurst Avenue. While no vehicular parking is shown on this alternative, vehicular parking currently exists in this area and additional parking could be provided on this parcel with the shifting of the T-hangars to the south. Vehicular parking could also be added to adjacent parcels depending on other development in the area.

Figure 5-21 T-HANGARS ALTERNATIVE FIVE

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-27 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

5.3.7 Air Cargo

Air Cargo Alternative One would be located to the east of the Runway 02/20 near the intersection of Brainerd Road and Jubilee Drive at the site of the former Target store. As shown in Figure 5-22, the facility would consist of two hangars of approximately 22,500 square feet each. Vehicular access would be provided off Jubilee Drive and passenger vehicular parking would be provided to either side of the hangars. Truck docking access and turn-around area would be provided to the east of the hangars. An aircraft apron would have to be built. As shown, the air cargo ramp would consist of approximately 11,100 square yards. Both larger and smaller hangars and aprons could be built on the site. If this facility is built prior to the extension of the runway, an extension to Taxiway A would have to be built to access Runway 02. If it is built after the extension to Runway 02/20 and Taxiway A, only a short taxiway stub would be required.

Figure 5-22 AIR CARGO ALTERNATIVE ONE

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-28 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Air Cargo Alternative Two would be located at the existing air cargo area, which is east of Runway 02/20 and adjacent to and southwest and west of the FAA air traffic control tower. As shown in Figure 5-23, this alternative would have two hangars of approximately 15,000 square feet each and a third hangar of approximately 20,400 square feet. The existing air cargo apron of approximately 28,000 square yards would need to be rehabilitated, as would the existing passenger vehicular parking area, truck dock parking and turn around space. Access would continue to occur via Pinehurst Avenue.

Figure 5-23 AIR CARGO ALTERNATIVE TWO

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-29 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Air Cargo Alternative Three would be located on the west side of Runway 02/20 and north of the U.S. Forestry Service complex. As shown in Figure 5-24, there would be as many as three hangars, each of approximately 24,000 square feet. There would be an aircraft apron of approximately 14,000 square yards and a new taxiway connecting to Taxiway H of approximately 350 lineal feet. The truck dock parking and turnaround would be to the southwest of the hangars and would be accessed from Jubilee Drive.

Figure 5-24 AIR CARGO ALTERNATIVE THREE

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-30 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

5.3.8 Maintenance Center

The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport does not currently have a significant aircraft maintenance facility, but from time to time, the Airport has been approached by different businesses interested in bringing such a facility to the Airport. These approaches have not resulted in the business coming to the Airport because either there were no existing facilities or an uncommitted area identified on the Airport that would be able to accommodate such a facility. The Airport desires to have a location identified within this Master Plan for such a facility. With the TANG leaving the Airport, the land that they currently occupy would become available for other uses. One alternative would be to identify the current TANG area of the Airport as a future Airline/Aircraft Maintenance Center or airline completion center as shown in Figure 5-25.

This area was considered ideal for the purpose as it has a relatively large area of contiguous land available. However, it is yet unknown exactly when this parcel will become available as the TANG must build new facilities in their new location. While the time to design and construct the new facilities can be estimated with some accuracy, the TANG is expecting to leave their current site on the Airport in its current condition. They have indicated that they do not intend to participate in the demolition of the facilities they will be abandoning. Considering the age of the facilities, it is possible that asbestos will be found in the buildings, which will add considerably to the demolition costs. While the Airport is petitioning various government officials to either compel the TANG to participate in the demolition or grant the Airport the money to do the demolition themselves, the time it will take to raise the funds and actually demolish the existing facilities remains unknown.

Figure 5-25 MAINTENANCE CENTER

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-31 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

5.3.9 Airport Business Park

For many years, airport operators across the United States relied upon the airlines to provide the majority of the airport’s revenue in the form of landing fees and terminal rents. Many aircraft had agreements with the airlines that annual shortfalls in the airport’s budget would be made up by the airlines. Today, while airports still receive landing fees and terminal rent, the revenue derived from airlines is much less certain as some airlines face bankruptcy and all are faced with major fuel costs. Airport operators such as the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority, which are owned by municipalities, are increasingly required to be self-sufficient. The FAA is encouraging airports across the country to try to develop alternative sources of revenue in order to offset the decline in airline revenues. Those airports with abundant undeveloped land have been developing those parcels identified as not being required for future aviation related facilities into aviation compatible land uses that will bring revenues to the airport offsetting the declining revenue from the airlines. By doing this, the airports are able to keep the costs to the airlines relatively low, encouraging the airlines to enter and remain in the market.

The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport does not have very much land that is not already developed or set aside for future aviation uses. It is also landlocked to a certain extent as it is bordered by the South Chickamauga Creek on the west, a quarry on the north and a heavily used freight rail line on the east. South of the Airport is Brainerd Road/Lee Highway, part of the federal highway system. However, there is some land between the Airport and Brainerd Road/Lee Highway. The land is currently used for commercial purposes and some residential. Over the years, as land has become available for sale at a reasonable price, the Airport has purchased some parcels in this area.

Some of the commercial properties in this area are currently depressed. The local community is concerned with the appearance that some of these properties present and would like to find a solution to upgrade the area. The Airport Board also recognizes the need within Hamilton County for a developable parcel of land of at least 50 acres that could be developed into a high-end, hotel, restaurant, and office-building complex

The Airport has determined that a long-term alternative to all of these concerns would be for the Airport to purchase land in this area as it becomes available with the goal of acquiring a contiguous parcel of land that could be developed into a high-end business park with hotels, restaurants, and two and three-story office buildings. All of these types of businesses would be compatible with the Airport and would bring an alternative source of revenue to the Airport. The Airport has also committed to the local community that as each individual piece of property is purchased, the buildings will be taken down and the property cleaned as soon as legally possible.

Most developers do not find it cost effective to develop non-contiguous parcels or parcels of land that are under approximately 50 acres. An area of approximately 50 acres located between the Airport and Brainerd Road/Lee Highway has been identified as a potential area to acquire the additional land as shown in Figure 5-26. Individual parcels identified for purchase may vary with time. This will depend on when the parcels become available. It will also depend on their respective prices.

The Airport is not considering taking these parcels by eminent domain. All purchases of property are intended to be on a voluntary basis on the part of the current owners over a long period. The dashed white line shows the boundary of the Airport, but there are also individual parcels of land

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-32 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

currently owned by the Airport within the area bounded by the Airport, Jubilee Drive, Pinehurst Avenue, Airport Road and Lee Highway. These parcels are not shown in Figure 5-26.

Figure 5-26 AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK

5.3.10 Greenways

In response to the Brainerd community located adjacent to the Airport and others, the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority requested that the Master Plan consider specific areas of the Airport that could be aesthetically enhanced. Two greenways were identified that would act as a buffer between the Airport and the community.

Southern Greenway

The Runway Protection Zone for Runway 02/20 extends beyond the property line of the Airport over Brainerd Road as shown by the yellow line in Figure 5-27. The FAA recommends that airports have control over the land located within RPZs, but recognizes that ownership of the land is not always possible. Control over the land includes clearing the RPZ areas of incompatible objects and activities. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 Airport Design identifies incompatible activities to be places of public assembly such as churches, schools, hospitals, office buildings, shopping centers, and other uses that would attract concentrations of people. Other non- compatible uses would be those areas that would attract wildlife, most parking facilities, and fuel storage facilities.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-33 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

The Airport will endeavor to purchase those parcels of land on the north side of Brainerd Road that are contained within the RPZ. The Airport does not intend to condemn the land and will only purchase the land when it becomes available for purchase at a fair market price. As parcels are purchased, it is the Airport’s intention to convert the land into a well-maintained green space with grass and low plantings. It is not intended that this area would become a public park, as that might at some point encourage an assembly of people. However, this greenway would provide an aesthetically appealing view from Brainerd Road.

Figure 5-27 SOUTHERN GREENWAY

Northern Greenway

The community has also requested a green area where they can picnic and perhaps view aircraft taking off and landing. A parcel of land has been identified on the north side of the airfield that would serve such a purpose. The area northwest of the intersection of Runways 02/20 and 15/33 is very rocky and it would be extremely expensive to level this area sufficiently to provide aircraft access. However, it would be possible to build an area for a picnic pavilion, picnic tables, a parking area overlooking the airfield, and a fenced play area for children. This area would be accessed via Lovell Field Loop Road, which can be accessed from Airport Road.

The northern greenway would have to remain outside of the Building Restriction Line, the green line shown on Figure 5-28. There would need to be security fencing between the greenway and the airfield.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-34 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 5-28 NORTHERN GREENWAY

5.3.11 Enhanced Airport Entrances

There are essentially three public entrances to the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. The primary entrance accesses the Airport from Shepherd Road. Another entrance accesses the Airport from Airport Road. Both of these enter the Airport at or near the commercial service passenger terminal. The third entrance accesses the Airport at the intersection of Jubilee Drive and Brainerd Road. The third entrance gives access to the part of the Airport that is located on the western side of the primary runway, Runway 02/20. Both the Shepherd Road and Jubilee Road entrances are in need of enhancement.

Enhanced Shepherd Road Airport Entrance

The primary entrance to the Airport is via Shepherd Road, which connects the Airport to Tennessee State Road 153. Shepherd Road, also known as Airport Connector, is a four-lane road with a center left-hand turning lane. As shown in Figure 5-29, the neighborhood through which it travels is mixed use commercial and residential. While the commercial properties are set back somewhat from the road, some residences back almost directly onto the road. There is very little landscaping.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-35 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 5-29 SHEPHERD ROAD

The Airport Authority Board is concerned that the aesthetics of Shepherd Road as it travels between Tennessee State Road 153 and the Airport are unappealing. The Board would like to see this road with a dividing median that has grass and landscaping. Additional landscaping on either side of the road as well as additional landscaping at key intersections would also be welcome. Some screening between the houses and the road would probably be welcome to the homeowners. This section of Shepherd Road does not belong to the Airport. Any enhancements to it would have to be done in conjunction with the City of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, and the Tennessee Department of Transportation.

Just before Shepherd Road enters Airport property, it bridges over a rail line and Airport Road as shown in Figure 5-30. All traffic entering Airport property, circles around to the north. Those traveling to the Airport slant off further to the north and then travel around the surface parking area. The remaining drivers continue to the stop sign at Airport Road and then travel either north or south on Airport Road.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-36 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 5-30 SHEPHERD ROAD AIRPORT ENTRANCE

The configuration as well as the aesthetics of Shepherd Road as it enters the Airport property is of concern to the Airport Authority Board. Engineering students from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga studied the bridge and the traffic associated with it and discovered that 70 percent of the traffic coming over the bridge to the Airport was not going to the Airport. Approximately 70 percent of the traffic would circle north and then east to the stop sign at Airport Road and take a left hand turn to travel south in the direction of Lee Highway. Only 30 percent of the traffic was accessing the Airport.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-37 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

The Airport will require more surface parking before they can build a parking garage, as the spaces in the Intermediate and Employee Lots will have to be relocated before construction on the parking garage can begin. With that in mind, a re-working of Shepherd Road was proposed as shown in Figure 5-31. The re-design of the Shepherd Road Bridge would loop the traffic south away from the terminal area, but would allow the Airport travelers to have an uninterrupted flow from the Shepherd Road Bridge to the terminal area. By looping Shepherd Road to the south after it crosses Airport Road, the area where the Hertz rental car Quick-Turn-Around (QTA) area is currently located could be incorporated into the terminal surface parking.

Figure 5-31 ENHANCED SHEPHERD ROAD ENTRANCE

Enhanced Jubilee Drive Airport Entrance

The Airport would also like to enhance the Jubilee Drive entrance to the Airport as Jubilee Drive meets Lee Highway/Brainerd/Road. It is proposed that the northeast corner of the intersection of Lee Highway and Jubilee Drive be upgraded to include a display area with a mounted aircraft. Included in this setting would be a low sign indicating that this is an entrance to the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport as shown in Figure 5-32. There would be a curb cut to allow buses to pull out of traffic to pickup and drop off passengers, as well as a bus shelter and a sidewalk. The entire corner would be landscaped appropriately.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-38 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 5-32 ENHANCED JUBILEE DRIVE AIRPORT ENTRANCE

5.3.12 First Evaluation of Alternatives

Each of the alternatives was evaluated on subjective criteria. Some of the elements had only one alternative. These include:

 Airfield Improvements  Maintenance Center  Airport Business Park

The elements for which there are more than one alternative are:

 Commercial Service Passenger Terminal and Parking  Second FBO  Conventional Hangars  T-Hangars  Air Cargo  Greenways  Enhanced Airport Entrances

All of the Commercial Service Passenger Terminal and Parking alternatives were advanced for further consideration. Of the four FBO alternatives, it was considered that FBO Alternative Two did not provide enough adjacent land area to allow expansion. FBO Alternative Three is located on the current TANG site. As the timing of the availability of the TANG site is currently unknown and is likely to take five years or more and the Airport desires to implement the second FBO within the

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-39 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

next five years, FBO Alternative Three was eliminated from further consideration. FBO Alternatives One and Four were both advanced of further consideration.

Of the conventional hangar alternatives, only Conventional Hangar Development Six was eliminated from consideration. This alternative would have been developed on the area northwest of the intersection of Runway 02/20 and Runway 15/33. The terrain in this area rises from both runways and there is a large amount of rock at and below the surface. The cost to level this area sufficiently for hangars to be built and for aircraft to be able to traverse would be prohibitively expensive for such a development.

Conventional Hangar Alternative Five was modified to include only the four western most conventional hangars. The land upon which the two eastern most hangars would be built would be better used for other purposes, if sufficient conventional hangars could be built in other areas.

Of the T-hangar alternatives, T-Hangars Alternative One was eliminated as it also would be located on the rocky land in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Runway 02/20 and 15/33. T- Hangars Alternative Three was eliminated as it would have been developed on land for which it was determined that a better use could be made provided that sufficient T-hangars could be provided on other parcels of land.

All of the Air Cargo Alternatives were advanced for further consideration.

The remaining Airport element alternatives are presented in Table 5-3. The squares made up of dotted lines indicate Airport element alternatives that have been eliminated.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-40 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 5-3 AIRPORT ELEMENT ALTERNATIVES Airfield Improvements / Terminal Parking FBO Second Conventional Hangars T-Hangars Air Cargo Maintenance Center Airport Business Park Greenways Enhanced Airport Entrances

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-41 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

This page left blank intentionally

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-42 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

5.4 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS

Airport Development Concepts are made up of combinations of each of the Airport element alternatives. Those Airport elements with only one alternative appear in all of the Airport Development Concepts. The difference between the concepts lies in the Airport elements that have more than one alternative and how they are combined.

5.4.1 Common Elements in the Airport Development Concepts

Each of the Airport Development Concepts was developed using the following elements that remain the same for all of the Airport Development Concepts. These elements were combined and are shown in Figure 5-33.

 Airfield Improvements  Maintenance Center  Airport Business Park  Greenways  Enhanced Airport Entrances

Figure 5-33 AIRPORT ELEMENTS COMMON TO ALL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-43 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

The difference between the Airport Development Concepts is the combination of the following Airport elements:

 Commercial Service Passenger Terminal and Parking  Second Fixed Base Operator  Conventional Hangars  T-Hangars  Air Cargo

5.4.2 Airport Development Concept One

As shown in Table 5-4 and Figure 5-34, Alternative Development Concept One was developed using the following Airport element alternatives:

 Airfield Improvements  Commercial Service Passenger Terminal Alternative One  Second FBO Alternative One  Conventional Hangar Alternative Three  Conventional Hangar Alternative Five Modified  T-Hangar Alternative Two  Air Cargo Alternative Two  Maintenance Center  Business Park  Greenways  Enhanced Airport Entrances

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-44 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 5-4 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT ONE AIRPORT ELEMENTS Airfield Improvements / Terminal Parking FBO Second Conventional Hangars T-Hangars Air Cargo Maintenance Center Airport Business Park Greenways Enhanced Airport Entrances

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-45 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 5-34 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT ONE

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-46 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

5.4.3 Airport Development Concept Two

Alternative Development Concept Two, as shown in Table 5-5 and Figure 5-35 was developed using the following Airport element alternatives:

 Airfield Improvements  Commercial Service Passenger Terminal Alternative Two  Second FBO Alternative Four  Conventional Hangar Alternative One  Conventional Hangar Alternative Four  Conventional Hangar Alternative Five Modified  T-Hangars Alternative Four Modified  Air Cargo One  Maintenance Center  Business Park  Greenways  Enhanced Airport Entrances

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-47 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

This Page Left Blank Intentionally

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-48 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 5-5 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT TWO AIRPORT ELEMENTS Airfield Improvements / Terminal Parking FBO Second Conventional Hangars T-Hangars Air Cargo Maintenance Center Airport Business Park Greenways Enhanced Airport Entrances

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-49 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 5-35 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT TWO

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-50 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

5.4.4 Airport Development Concept Three

Alternative Development Concept Three, as shown in Table 5-6 and Figure 5-36 was developed using the following Airport element alternatives:

 Airfield Improvements  Commercial Service Passenger Terminal Alternative Three  Second FBO Alternative Four  Conventional Hangar Alternative One  Conventional Hangar Alternative Two  Conventional Hangar Alternative Three  T-Hangars Alternative Five  Air Cargo Three  Maintenance Center  Airport Business Park  Greenways  Enhanced Airport Entrances

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-51 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

This Page Left Blank Intentionally

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-52 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 5-6 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT THREE AIRPORT ELEMENTS Airfield Improvements / Terminal Parking FBO Second Conventional Hangars T-Hangars Air Cargo Maintenance Center Airport Business Park Greenways Enhanced Airport Entrances

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-53 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 5-36 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT THREE

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-54 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

5.5 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

The evaluation of alternatives should be based upon the issues identified at the beginning of the Master Plan process, as well the requirements of each element as detailed in the Facility Requirements. Wherever possible the issues have been re-stated to provide measurable criteria.

5.5.1 Evaluation of Terminal/Parking Alternatives

Three Terminal/Parking alternatives remain under consideration. Each of these alternatives provides realistic terminal/parking solutions in varying degrees. As shown in Table 5-7, each meets the 20-year capacity requirements identified for the terminal and parking elements, which included the following:

 In addition to the existing six gates, an additional three gates minimum  A total of 15,320 square feet of departure lounge area  One additional baggage claim device  Two additional passenger screening checkpoint lanes  800 feet of effective curb length  A total of 2,235 public, employee ,and rental car ready and return parking spaces

Table 5-7 EVALUATION OF TERMINAL/PARKING ALTERNATIVES Alternative Terminal Parking Alternatives One Two Three

Number of Additional Gates 4 6 4

Area of Additional Gates 17,500 27,500 17,500

Total Terminal Curb Length in Feet 900 1,400 1,600 Shortest Distance in Feet on Roadway Between Decision Points 20 450 350

Approximate Number of Surface Parking Spaces 810 1,210 970 Approximate Number of Structured Parking Spaces 1,470 1,100 1,370

Total Number of Parking Spaces 2,280 2,310 2,340

Number of Floors to Parking Garage 4 3 3

Parking Garage Blocks the View of the Terminal? Yes Yes No

Relative Cost $75.9 million $106.4 million $90.1 million Potential Expansion Beyond Plan Without 5.5 Acres to the 1.4 Acres to the Less Than One Affecting Current FBO Areas North North Acre Within 500-year Within 500-year Within 500-year Environmental Considerations Flood Area Flood Area Flood Area

While Terminal/Parking Alternative Two would provide more gates, there would be less than two acres of additional land immediately adjacent to the terminal for potential expansion beyond the

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-55 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update plan without infringing upon the leased FBO areas to the north and the south. In addition, the relative cost of Terminal/Parking Alternative Two would be considerably higher than either Alternatives One or Three. While the lengthening of the roadway loop was desired, and it was understood that the realignment of the concourse would ultimately allow more or larger gates to be constructed, it was considered that the realignment of the concourse and check-in wing would be more expensive than the Airport could afford within the next twenty years.

Between Terminal/Parking Alternatives One and Three, while Alternative Three costs approximately $14.2 million dollars more, it has more than 1.7 times as much curb length, provides longer distances between decision points on the roadway system making it easier to navigate, and the parking garage does not impede the view of the terminal. In fact, the garage is proposed to be designed to match the architecture of the terminal and the unified façade would present a cohesive architectural element. Terminal/Parking Alternative Three was selected as the recommended alternative.

5.5.2 Evaluation of Second FBO Alternatives

The two remaining Second FBO Alternatives would be located on the same site and would take up approximately the same amount of area. The major difference between the two alternatives would be the concentration of conventional hangars in Alternative Four versus the mix of conventional hangars, T-hangars, and tie-down areas of Alternative One. As shown in Table 5-8, this also results in a difference between the amounts of apron area available versus the amount of hangar space available. Table 5-8 EVALUATION OF SECOND FBO ALTERNATIVES

Alternative Criteria One Four

Square Feet of Conventional Hangar Space 24,000 97,800

Square Yards of New Apron 2,030 1,480

Number of T-Hangars 16 0

Distance from the Intersection of the Runways (feet) 1,950 1,950

Travel Distance to a Principal Highway (feet) 7,500 7,500 Less Than Less Than Expansion Potential Beyond Plan One Acre One Acre

Outside Outside 500-year 500-year Flood Environmental Considerations Flood Area Area

While Alternative One would have more apron space available, Alternative Four would have far more hangar space available. With all other criteria being relatively equal, Second FBO Alternative Four was selected as the recommended alternative.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-56 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

5.5.3 Evaluation of Conventional Hangar Alternatives

There are five remaining conventional hangar alternatives, as shown in Table 5-9. While 42,300 square feet of additional conventional hangar space and approximately 4,700 square yards of associated aircraft apron are anticipated to be required within the next 20-year period, it is anticipated that more than one of the conventional hangar alternatives may actually be constructed within the period. Therefore, more than one of the Conventional Hangar Alternatives will be used in the recommended Airport Development alternative. For that reason, rather than selecting one Conventional Hangar Alternative, these alternatives were ranked.

Table 5-9 EVALUATION OF CONVENTIONAL HANGAR ALTERNATIVES

Alternative Five Criteria One Two Three Four (Modified)

Square Feet of Conventional Hangars 55,500 60,000 45,000 50,400 103,750

Square Yards of New Apron 14,400 3,750 18,300 9,000 13,700

Shortest Distance to a Runway in Feet 600 600 1,400 750 600

Additional Acres of Land Required to be Purchased None 1.0 None None 3.4

Relative Site Development Costs $5.2 million $3.9 million $20.7 million $3.9 million $9.2 million

Within 100- Within 500- Within 100- Within 100- Seasonal year Flood year Flood year Flood year Flood Environmental Considerations Flooding Area Area Area Area

Rank 4 1 5 3 2

Alternative Two is ranked number one. It would require the purchase of a small parcel of land of approximately an acre. The cost of the land has been factored into the cost of the alternative. However, because the alternative would be using existing apron, the overall cost of the site development of the alternative would be relatively low.

Alternative Five (modified), which has been ranked second, would feature four conventional hangars on approximately the same site as Alternative Two, resulting in approximately 75 percent more conventional hangar area. Its implementation would require the purchase of a little over three acres of land. The cost of the land has been factored into the cost of the alternative. As in Alternative Two, Alternative Five would also be using existing apron, but would require more new apron to be built as well.

Alternative Four has been ranked third. It would have less conventional hangar area than Alternative Two, but it would also require that less additional apron area be built than for Alternative Five (modified). However, there is no existing apron in this area to augment the new apron. The apron would be small in comparison to the other alternatives. The cost of this

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-57 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

alternative would be influenced by the necessity to build a taxiway of approximately 500 lineal feet to reach Taxiway H.

The fourth ranked Alternative Four would be well located in a central location on the primary runway. However, he existing apron would have to be entirely reconstructed as the existing apron in this area is in poor condition. In addition, considerable drainage improvements would have to be added to this site in order to mitigate the flooding that currently occurs in the area.

Alternative Three would have the smallest amount of conventional hangar area, but would have the second largest apron area. In addition, this alternative would require that an extension to Taxiway A be built if the extensions to Runway 02/20 and Taxiway A have not been built prior to the construction of Conventional Hangar Alternative Three. Portions of the existing pavement of the former Target parking lot would have to be demolished and the former Target building would have to be razed prior to construction of this alternative. Each of these factors added considerably to the cost of this alternative and factored into its being ranked fifth.

5.5.4 Evaluation of T-Hangar Alternatives

There are three remaining T-hangar alternatives, Alternatives Two, Five and a modified Four. Alternative Four has been modified to have two buildings of eight T-hangars each. These alternatives and the criteria against which they have been evaluated are shown in Table 5-10

Table 5-10 EVALUATION OF T-HANGAR ALTERNATIVES

Alternative

Criteria Two Four (Modified) Five

Number of T-Hangars 21 16 26

Square Yards of New Apron 12,680 9,700 11,000

Length in Feet of Additional Required Taxiway 200 100 300 Clear View at 1,200 Clear View at 100 Obstructed View at View Between Buildings From Tower Yards Yards 100 Yards Available on Available Vehicle Parking 64 Spaces on Site 90 Spaces on Site Adjacent Site

Additional Land Purchase Required None 0.7 Acres None

Relative Site Development Costs $3.6 million $3.5 million $3.1 million Less Than One 3.0 Acres to the 1.6 Acres to the Expansion Potential Beyond Plan Acre East South Within 100-year Seasonal Environmental Considerations Flood Area Seasonal Flooding Flooding

Each of the Alternatives would provide more than the eight additional T-hangars and the 9,200 square yards of additional associated apron that are anticipated to be required within the next 20- year period. The respective additional taxiway lengths would also be relatively equal. More than enough vehicle parking spaces would be provided in Alternatives Two and Four. While vehicle

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-58 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

parking would not be provided in Alternative Five, as sufficient parking can be found in the vicinity, it could also easily be added to this alternative. The principal difference in the site development costs is the lack of on-site parking in Alternative Five. If parking were added to this alternative, the alternative would have a cost more closely aligned with those of Alternatives Two and Four.

While Alternative Four would require the purchase of land, it is also has an unobstructed line of sight and is closest to the Air Traffic Control Tower. In addition, Alternative Four would have approximately three acres currently within the Airport boundaries that would be available for expansion. T-Hangars Alternative Four (modified) was selected as the recommended alternative.

5.5.5 Evaluation of Air Cargo Alternatives

The Facility Requirements recommended a broad range of square foot air-cargo terminal areas and square yards of associated aircraft apron. For the “Base” case, this ranged from 18,700 square feet to 33,600 square feet of terminal area and from 3,600 to 9,300 square yards of apron. The “High” case recommended from 33,200 to 59,700 square feet of air-cargo terminal area and from 9,200 to 16,600 square yards of apron. FedEx, when recently looking at Chattanooga, recommended an air cargo terminal of approximately 31,400 square feet and an associated aircraft apron of approximately 7,400 square yards.

Each of the Air Cargo Alternatives shown in Table 5-11 would exceed the “Base” case requirements and those previously proposed by FedEx. None as shown would meet the highest requirements of the “High” case.

Table 5-11 EVALUATION OF AIR CARGO ALTERNATIVES

Alternative Criteria One Two Three

Square Feet of Hangar Space 45,000 52,400 71,250

Square Yards of New Apron 18,300 14,400 12,500

Travel Distance to a Principal Highway (feet) 200 4,300 9,150

Relative Site Development Costs $21.4 million $5.3 million $3.8 million

2.2 Acres South & 3.4 Acres Less Than One Expansion Potential Beyond Plan 2.2 Acres North South Acre

Within 500-year Seasonal Within 100-year Environmental Considerations Flood Area Flooding Flood Area

While the site development costs for Alternative Three would likely be the least expensive of the three, it also completely builds out the site. There would be no room for potential expansion.

The cost to develop the site for Alternative One assumes that the extensions to Runway 02/20 and Taxiway A have not yet been built. Therefore, the costs for extending Taxiway A to the site, which is close to the intersection of Lee Highway and Jubilee Drive is included in the site development costs of Alternative One. The cost of demolishing the former Target building and some of the associated parking lot is included in the cost. However, Alternative One has the most adjacent land area available for expansion.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-59 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

As the future expansion of the cargo industry is uncertain across the United States as well as at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport, Alternative Two was selected as the recommended alternative. This is the site of the current air cargo facilities. By selecting this alternative, should air cargo remain in a depressed state, the Airport would not have to build additional air cargo facilities immediately. If the air cargo industry in Chattanooga should increase, the air cargo facilities can be augmented on an incremental, as needed basis, as the demand builds.

5.6 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

The Airport staff, the Board of the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority, and the consultant reviewed the comments of the User’s Group, the Technical Advisory Committee, and those submitted at or after the Public Information Workshop. The positive and negative aspects of each of the alternatives were also taken into consideration. From this input, it was decided to follow primarily Airport Development Concept One, with the following exceptions:

 Terminal/Parking Alternative Three would be used instead of Terminal/Planning Alternative One.  Instead of FBO Alternative One, FBO Alternative Four would be used which has eight conventional hangars with a total of 97,800 square feet.  The residential parcels formerly identified as being within the Airport Business Park have been taken out; only commercial businesses would now be identified for acquisition and inclusion within the Airport Business Park.  Instead of the modified Conventional Hangar Alternative Five, Conventional Hangar Alternative Two would be used, which has three conventional hangars with a total of 60,000 square feet. Those elements from Airport Development Concept One that remain as part of the Recommended Alternative are the following:

 Airfield Improvements  Maintenance Center  Business Park  Greenways  Enhanced Airport Entrances  Conventional Hangar Alternative Three with two conventional hangars located near the intersection of Jubilee Drive and Brainerd Road with a total of 45,000 square feet  Conventional Hangar Alternative Four with three hangars located just north of the U.S. Forestry Service with a total of 50,400 square feet  The western most two buildings of T-Hangars Alternative Four with a total of 16 T-hangars in this planning period and ultimately 40 T-hangars  Air Cargo Alternative Two with three hangars located at the existing air cargo apron

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-60 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Additionally, as it was determined that the parking garage would most likely not be built for several years, but that additional parking would most likely be required before a parking garage could be built. It was determined that the existing gravel parking lot should be expanded, paved, fenced, lit, and revenue control equipment should be installed as shown in Figure 5-37. The additional parking would also be needed during the construction of the garage to accommodate those cars that are currently parking in the intermediate and employee parking lots.

Figure 5-37 TEMPORARY SURFACE PARKING LOT

The Recommended Alternative as shown in Table 5-12 and Figure 5-38 will be brought forward into the next chapter; Airport Layout Plans, where the Recommended Alternative will be graphically depicted in a manner prescribed by the FAA to depict the current and future facilities of the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport. The Recommended Alternative will also be brought forward into the Facilities Implementation Plan, which will break it apart into individual projects. Each project will be placed into an implementation schedule, a short, defining narrative will be written for each project, and a gross order of magnitude cost estimate will be developed for each project.

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-61 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

This page left blank intentionally

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-62 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 5-12 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE AIRPORT ELEMENTS

Airfield Improvements / Terminal Parking FBO Second Conventional Hangars T-Hangars Air Cargo Maintenance Center Airport Business Park Greenways Enhanced Airport Entrances

Development and Evaluation of Alternatives 5-63 FINAL REPORT

This Page Left Blank Intentionally

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 5-38 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE

Airport Layout Plan 5-65 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

CHAPTER 6 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) set for the development of the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport from 2009 to 2027, presents the Airport’s compliance with FAA design standards, lists revisions to the ALP, and presents a reduced size ALP set. The ALP graphically illustrates the existing facilities of the Airport, as well as the proposed development based on the aviation forecasts, facility requirements, and the alternatives analysis. An ALP set is made up of the ALP drawing, as well as other supporting drawings that are considered to be appended to the ALP drawing. As presented in the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, five primary functions of the ALP define its purpose:

 The approved plans are necessary in order to receive financial assistance under the terms of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AIP), as amended, and specific passenger facility charge actions. The maintenance of a current plan and conformity to the plan are grant assurance requirements at an airport on which Federal funds have been expended under the AIP and the previous airport development programs, including the 1970 Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP) and Federal Aid Airports Program (FAAP) of 1946, as amended. While ALPs are not required for airports other than those developed with assistance under the aforementioned Federal programs, this guidance can be applied to all airports.  The plans create a blueprint for airport development by depicting proposed facility improvements consistent with the strategic vision of the airport sponsor. The plans provide a guideline by which the airport sponsor can assure that development maintains airport design standards and safety requirements, and is consistent with airport and community land use plans.  The ALP serves as a public document that is a record of aeronautical requirements, both present and future, and as a reference for community deliberations on land use proposals and budget resource planning.  The approved ALP provides the FAA with a plan for airport development. This will allow compatible planning for FAA owned facility improvements at the airport. It also allows the FAA to anticipate needs for budgetary and procedural needs. The approved ALP will also allow the FAA to protect necessary airspace for planned facility or approach procedure improvements.  The plans can be a working tool for use by the airport sponsor, including development and maintenance staff. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TNDOT) require a complete ALP set for consideration of future funding. Programming of FAA and TNDOT funds are based on development projects depicted on the ALP sheet. The plans have been developed in accordance with the following:

 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans  FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B, Appendix F, Airport Layout Plan Drawing Set  FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design  Airport Layout Plan Checklist – Memphis Airport Districts Office (revised 9/95)

Airport Layout Plan 6-1 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

6.2 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN SET

The complete Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport ALP set consists of nine drawings. The purpose of each drawing is described in this section. The ALP drawings are produced on 24-inch by 36- inch sheets and submitted by the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority to TNDOT and FAA for review and approval. Reduced, reproductions of the draft ALP are included at the back of this chapter for illustration purposes. All of the ALP set drawings were created using AutoCAD version 2008.

6.2.1 Cover Sheet

The cover sheet of the ALP set provides basic Airport data that is not found elsewhere on the ALP. The cover sheet includes the project name, FAA, and TNDOT grant numbers and the name of the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority as the Airport Sponsor. The cover sheet also displays a location map, which indicates the Airport, major cities in Tennessee and Georgia, major roads and other features near the Airport.

6.2.2 Airport Layout Plan

The ALP is the graphic representation of existing and ultimate Airport facilities. The ALP is the key document, which reflects changes in physical features on and near the Airport, which may affect navigable airspace or the ability of the Airport to operate. The ALP includes dimensional information in order for recommended development to be in accordance with FAA planning and design recommendations outlined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13 Airport Design and 150/5070-6B Airport Master Plans. Development shown on the ALP corresponds to the Airport’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the 20-year period, with emphasis on the first five-year period.

6.2.3 Facilities Layout Plan

This drawing presents the existing and future Airport facilities, and only critical, non-overlapping clearance criteria, with minimal text. This drawing is essentially a simplified ALP and is intended to be an easy to use graphic for Airport staff.

6.2.4 Terminal Area Plan

This plan sheet shows the development of the commercial-service passenger terminal area and other facilities near the terminal. Major projects anticipated in the terminal area include loop road improvements, a baggage claim building expansion, concourse expansion, and the new public parking structure connected to the ticketing wing of the terminal.

6.2.5 Airport Airspace Drawing

The Airport Airspace Plan depicts “imaginary surfaces” that surround the Airport as defined in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. They consist of the following surfaces:

 Primary Surface  Approach Surface  Transitional Surface

Airport Layout Plan 6-2 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

 Horizontal Surface  Conical Surface

The drawing is based on the ultimate runway configuration for both runways as planned to occur within the twenty-year planning period. Known obstructions have been identified.

6.2.6 Inner Portion of the Approach Surface for Runway 02/20

This drawing shows plan and profile views of the inner portions of the approach surfaces to the runway ends of Runway 02/20 at the Chattanooga Metropolitan. In addition to the approach surfaces contained in 14 CFR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, the drawing also depicts other approach surfaces including the threshold-siting surface and those surfaces associated with United States Standards for Instrument Procedures (TERPS).

6.2.7 Inner Portion of the Approach Surface for Runway 15/33

This drawing will present the same information as the preceding drawing, but it will present it for Runway 15/33.

6.2.8 On-Airport Land-Use Plan

On Airport, property areas to be reserved for basic Airport functions will be delineated on this drawing. Such functions include the airfield, terminal area facilities including parking, air cargo, general aviation, primary FBO areas, alternative FBO areas, ARFF, Airport maintenance, and non- aviation commercial/industrial revenue production areas. These land uses are consistent with the Airport’s requirements for aircraft operations and safety. Off-Airport property required for acquisition to permit future Airport development has also been depicted.

6.2.9 Airport Property Map

The Airport Property Map depicts the Airport boundary, the various tracts of land that were acquired to develop the Airport, and the method of acquisition. This plan must be updated when the airport changes any property boundary, acquires new property, or acquires new easements.

6.3 AIRPORT COMPLIANCE WITH FAA DESIGN STANDARDS

The FAA provides airport design standards to ensure safe and efficient airport operations. The primary guidance is contained in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B Airport Master Plans. The production of an ALP set also relies on numerous other FAA and Federal Agency documents, including, but not limited to the following:

 Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace  FAA Order 8260.3B United States Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures  FAA Order 5200.8, Runway Safety Area Program

The ALP Drawing Set developed as a part of this master update complies with each of these documents.

Airport Layout Plan 6-3 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

6.4 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN HIGHLIGHTS AND MODIFICATIONS

This section highlights significant elements of the proposed ALP and notes significant changes from the previous ALP (2000) prepared for the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport.

 The recently completed 500-foot extension to Runway 33 has been shown.  The recently completed 575-foot extension to Taxiway D has been shown.  Taxiway A has been modified to reflect recent construction, which brings the taxiway up to FAA standards. The Taxiway is now 75 feet wide and the centerline is now 400 feet from the centerline of Runway 02/20.  The configuration of Taxiway’s B and C has been modified to reflect recent construction.  Future Runway 02 extension has been modified from 1,600 feet in length to 1,199 feet.  Future Runway 20 extension of 800 feet has been eliminated.  Future Taxiway A extensions have been modified from 1,600 feet in length to the south and 3,000 feet in length in the north, to only 1,199 feet in the south.  The future widening of Taxiway K has been shown.  The future expansion of the North GA apron has been shown.  The future expansion of the South airfield apron has been shown.  The future extension to Taxiway H between Runway 15/33 and the Runway 20 end has been shown.  The modifications to the western side of Runway 02/20 have been shown including the construction of Jubilee Drive, the ARFF facility, the U.S. Department of Interior facility, Taxiway H, and the apron adjacent to Taxiway H.  An additional existing conventional hangar located in the northwest quadrant of the airfield has been shown.  Future apron and conventional hangars have been shown on the east side of the extended Runway 02 in the location of the former Target building.  Long-term development strategies have been developed for the commercial service terminal area, general aviation, air cargo, an Airport business park, an Airport Maintenance Center, and greenways. These are illustrated in the Facilities Layout Plan, the Terminal Area Plan and the On-Airport Land Use Plan.  A new Facilities Layout Plan has been added to the set.  A new On-Airport Land-use Plan has been added to the set.

Airport Layout Plan 6-4 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 6-1 ALP DRAWING SET COVER SHEET

Airport Layout Plan 6-5 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 6-2 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN

Airport Layout Plan 6-6 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 6-3 FACILITIES LAYOUT PLAN

Airport Layout Plan 6-7 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 6-4 TERMINAL AREA PLAN

Airport Layout Plan 6-8 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 6-5 AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWING

Airport Layout Plan 6-9 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 6-6 INNER PORTION OF THE APPROACH SURFACE FOR RUNWAY 02/20

Airport Layout Plan 6-10 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 6-7 INNER PORTION OF THE APPROACH SURFACE FOR RUNWAY 15/33

Airport Layout Plan 6-11 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 6-8 ON-AIRPORT LAND-USE PLAN

Airport Layout Plan 6-12 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 6-9 AIRPORT PROPERTY MAP

Airport Layout Plan 6-13 FINAL REPORT

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

CHAPTER 7 FACILITIES IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The Facilities Implementation Plan presents the projects necessary to implement the Recommended Alternative. These projects, which make up the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), are arranged by the short-, medium- and long-term phase in which they are likely to be required. The phase in which a project is placed is determined largely by the demand triggers presented in Table 4-69 of the Facility Requirements chapter.

While projects have been assigned to specific planning phases, airport projects will be undertaken only when demand warrants, rather than in accordance with a predefined schedule. By assigning projects to a specific planning phase, the Airport is able to reserve or purchase land, obtain environmental approvals, arrange funding, and a multitude of other steps in advance of actual development. Therefore, the CIP schedule should be adjusted periodically in accordance with actual conditions.

The CIP has a number of projects that would require some form of National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) documentation. Rather than have individual NEPA documentation for each of the projects, several projects have been bundled together where feasible. Criteria used to determine which projects should be bundled together included understanding projects linkages such as:

 The implementation of one project would be dependent on the implementation of another project  The projects are in geographic proximity to one another  The projects have similar timeframes

The similar timeframes criterion had the least influence because the issue of segmentation was considered to override the timeframe issue. Segmentation occurs when one or more projects is broken into separate pieces and the environmental analysis only discusses the needs issues and impacts within the boundaries whether physical or time of each piece rather than of the entire project or projects. Independent utility was the key determinant in identifying the type of documentation that should be prepared. It also determined which projects should be included in each specific NEPA document. To have independent utility, a project must be useable and a reasonable expenditure even if no other projects are implemented. With these considerations in mind, the various NEPA documentation projects were bundled as shown in the list of projects.

This chapter also provides planning-level cost estimates for each project. The cost estimates are in 2009 dollars. Planning-level cost estimates are order of magnitude estimates that consider gross areas multiplied by unit cost factors. Factors have also been included for each project that take into consideration contractor overhead and design costs, as well as construction administration and resident inspection costs for those projects where this is appropriate. In addition, a contingency factor is applied, usually as high as 20 percent. This contingency factor is applied to account for variables in the design and construction of facilities. The intent is to make sure enough funding is set aside for each CIP project.

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-1 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Each project that receives federal funding must go through an environmental analysis. The type of environmental analyses that are applicable to airport improvement projects, the areas of potential environmental impact that might be encountered with the CIP projects, and an overview of the agency coordination and permitting that could be necessary are also discussed in this chapter.

7.2 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS

This section presents the three phases of the Master Plan Update Capital Improvement Program. The phases are represented by the short-, medium-, and long-term. The short-term plan is presented in more detail as the probability is higher that the projects identified in this phase will be realized. The medium- and long-term phases are presented with less detail as their scope and need are more likely to change before they are realized.

7.2.1 Short-Term Capital Improvement Program Projects

This section briefly describes the CIP projects that are planned to be implemented in the short-term phase, between the years of 2009 and 2012. The majority of these short-term projects are enabling projects that pave the way for other projects that are planned to be implemented within the medium-term phase of the Capital Improvement Program.

Environmental

I-1: Air Cargo/Airport Business Park/Hangar Development/ Southern Development Environmental Assessment This project is one that analyzes projects that are likely to require an Environmental Assessment (EA) and that are located on the eastern and southern areas of the Airport. These projects could include:  The demolition of the Target building and TANG facilities  Land acquisition and demolition of existing structures for Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the Airport Business Park  Runway 02 Runway Protection Zone  T-hangars  The construction and operation of T-hangars  The Jubilee Drive Entrance Improvements  The Southern Greenway  The Maintenance Center  Three conventional hangars  The replacement of the existing Air Cargo facilities with new facilities

I-2: West Side Development Environmental Assessment This EA would assess the potential impact of the construction and operation of the West Development projects on the environment. The remaining projects requiring NEPA evaluation would include the fuel farm and Phases 2 and 3 of the West Terminal Development Area.

Airfield Projects

I-3: Taxiway H Extension Design and Construction The design and construction of the extension of Taxiway H would be 75 feet in width and would run parallel to and west of Runway 02/20. The project would include the intersection of Taxiway H and Runway 15/33 and would extend approximately 600 feet from Runway 15/33 to a point parallel to

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-2 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

the end of Runway 20 and then turn to the east to meet the Runway 20 end for a total length of approximately 1,100 feet.

I-4: Runway Protection Zone – Property Acquisition This project would acquire approximately 14 acres of land located either wholly or in part within the current Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) of Runway 02. Approximately 12 commercial properties are currently situated on this land. The property lies between the current Airport property line and Brainerd Road.

Commercial Service Passenger Terminal and Parking

I-5: Temporary Surface Parking Area Design and Construction A temporary surface parking area of approximately 81,250 square feet would be designed and constructed in the area of the current gravel parking lot. This project would include the current gravel parking lot. It would be designed to accommodate approximately 250 vehicles. Rosedale Drive would also be relocated so that it does not bisect the parking area, but continues to link Airport Road and Pinehurst Avenue. The relocated Rosedale Drive would be approximately 650 feet in length. Both the parking lot and associated road would be designed in asphalt.

I-6: Passenger Security Screening Checkpoint Expansion – Phase 1 The passenger security-screening checkpoint would be expanded by one additional screening lane for two screening positions. This would necessitate the demolition of some interior non-structural walls, as well as the building of new interior walls and the associated wall finishes and carpeting of the area. It is assumed that the equipment and furnishings necessary for the additional passenger- screening checkpoint would be provided by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

West Development Area

I-7: West Development Area Site Improvements Design and Construction – Phase 1 The design and conf site improvements for the entire West Development Area, which consists of approximately 20 acres, would be accomplished in this project.

I-8: West Development Area - Phase 1 Structures Design and Construction Phase 1 of the second FBO facility would consist of a fuel farm, two hangars with a combined total of about 22,000 square feet, and approximately 30 vehicle parking spaces.

Enhanced Airport Entrances

I-9: Jubilee Drive Entrance Improvements Design and Construction This project would design and construct the demolition of existing pavement on the site and construct the planned improvements to produce a park-like entrance to the Airport via Jubilee Drive in accordance with the parameters of the EA. This project would include signage, a bus shelter, curb cut for city buses, and a mounted, donated, decommissioned aircraft.

Miscellaneous

I-10: Target Building Demolition This project would demolish the former Target building and the debris would be removed from the site. The building pad and parking pavement would remain.

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-3 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

7.2.2 Short-Term Projects Summary

Most of the projects to be accomplished within the short-term of the Master Plan or from 2009 through 2012 are enabling or preparatory projects that would be completed in the medium-term or the years from 2013 to 2017. Figure 7-1 graphically indicates the short-term projects.

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-4 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 7-1 SHORT-TERM CIP PROJECTS

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-5 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

This page left blank intentionally

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-6 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

7.2.3 Medium-Term Capital Improvement Projects

This section describes the medium-term projects that are planned to be implemented in the five- year period of 2013 to 2017. These medium-term projects complete development projects that were begun in the short-term phase, as well as implement enabling projects that pave the way for projects to be implemented within the long-term phase of the Capital Improvement Program.

Environmental

II-1: North GA Apron and Taxiway K Expansion CATEX A CATEX environmental study would be performed to determine if the construction and operation of an expansion of approximately 7,250 square yards to the North General Aviation (GA) Apron would be detrimental to the environment. The report would also analyze the potential impacts of widening Taxiway K from 50 feet wide to 75 feet wide.

II-2: Runway Extension Environmental Assessment This EA would analyze the extension of Runway 02 and Taxiway A. It would analyze the potential impact of the construction and operation of these airfield facilities on the environment.

II-3: Terminal Area Development Environmental Assessment The Terminal Concourse Expansion, the Terminal Loop Road Widening, the Consolidated Rental Car Quick-Turn-Around facility, the Parking Garage/Baggage Make-up, and the Baggage Claim Expansion project would likely be included in this EA. The EA would analyze the potential environmental impacts that the implementation and operation of these terminal area projects might have on the environment.

II-4: Shepherd Road Enhancement and Bridge Reconfiguration Environmental Assessment This EA, to be performed in cooperation with the Tennessee Department of Transportation, Hamilton County, and the City of Chattanooga, would analyze the potential environmental impacts of two proposed projects. The Shepherd Road Enhancement project and the Reconfiguration of the Road and Bridge between Shepherd Road and the Airport would be studied to determine if theses aesthetic and functional enhancements would adversely impact the environment.

Airfield Projects

II-5: Runway 02 and Taxiway A Extension Design and Construction Once a FONSI has been signed for the EA, this project would complete the design and construction of the 1,199-foot extension to Runway 02/20 and the associated extension of parallel Taxiway A in accordance with the parameters of the EA.

II-6: North GA Apron Expansion Design and Construction This project would design and construct the approximately 7,250 square yard expansion to the North GA Apron.

Commercial Service Passenger Terminal and Parking

II-7: Terminal Concourse Expansion Design and Construction After the EA is concluded, this project would design and construct a two-story extension of the terminal concourse. This project would include the addition of three passenger-boarding bridges.

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-7 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

II-8: Terminal Loop Road Widening Design and Construction After the EA is concluded, this project would design and construct the widening of the terminal loop road in accordance with the parameters of the EA.

II-9: Consolidated Rental Car QTA Design and Construction After the EA is concluded, this project would design the consolidated rental car Quick-Turn–Around (QTA) facility for the rental car companies within the parameters of the EA.

II-10: Passenger Security Screening Checkpoint Expansion – Phase 2 The passenger security-screening checkpoint would be expanded by one additional screening lane for three screening positions. It is assumed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would provide the equipment and furnishings necessary for the additional passenger-screening checkpoint.

West Development Area

II-11: West Development Area – Phase 2 Design and Construction Phase 2 of the second FBO facility would be designed and constructed with an additional two hangars with a combined total of about 22,000 square feet and approximately 18 additional vehicle parking spaces.

Conventional Hangars

II-12: Conventional Hangar 1 – Site Development Design and Construction After the EA is concluded, this project would design and construct in accordance with the parameters of the EA the approximately 12,000 square foot hangar, approximately 18 vehicle parking spaces, and an access road of approximately 450 feet in length.

T-Hangars

II-13: Land Acquisition – T-Hangars This project would purchase approximately two and a half acres of land for building two phases of T-hangars with 16 additional units.

II-14: T-Hangars – Phase 1 – Site Improvements Design and Construction At the conclusion of the CATEX, this project would demolish the existing properties on the property, grub, grade the land, design, and construct approximately 120 square yards of associated apron and taxilanes and a taxiway stub of approximately 175 feet in length.

II-15: T-Hangars – Phase 1 – Structures Design and Construction This project would design and construct the eight-unit T-hangar structure.

Air Cargo

II-16: Air Cargo Site Improvements Design and Construction The design and construction of the site improvements for new air cargo facilities and necessary site drainage would be the focus of this project, which would include the reconstruction of approximately 18,500 square yards of apron and approximately 10,000 square yards of vehicular parking and truck maneuvering area.

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-8 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Maintenance Center

II-17: Demolition of Existing TANG Facilities and Site Grading After the EA is concluded, this project would demolish the existing TANG facilities, the debris would be removed from the site, and the site would be graded within the parameters of the EA.

II-18: Maintenance Center Site Development Design After the EA is concluded, this project would begin the design of a maintenance center site- development package in preparation for construction.

Airport Business Park

I-19: Airport Business Park Land Acquisition – Phase 1 This project would purchase land as it becomes available for sale by the current owners. The purpose of the land acquisition would be for a future Airport Business Park. It is estimated that approximately six acres would be purchased in Phase 1.

I-20: Airport Business Park Existing Structures Demolition – Phase 1 After the EA is concluded, this project would demolish existing structures on the property that the Airport has purchased for the purposes of developing an Airport Business Park, the debris would be removed from the site, and the site would be graded within the parameters of the EA FONSI.

II-21: Airport Business Park Land Acquisition – Phase 2 This project would purchase land as it becomes available for sale by the current owners. The purpose of the land acquisition would be for a future Airport Business Park. It is estimated that approximately seven acres would be purchased in Phase 2.

II-22: Airport Business Park Existing Structures Demolition – Phase 2 After the EA for this project is concluded, this project would demolish existing structures on the property that the Airport has purchased for the purposes of developing an Airport Business Park, the debris would be removed from the site, and the site would be graded within the parameters of the EA.

Greenways

II-23: Demolition of the Commercial Properties within the RPZ After the EA is concluded for the demolition of the commercial properties currently located within the RPZ of Runway 02 end, this project would demolish the existing structures on the property, the debris would be removed from the site and the site would be graded within the parameters of the EA.

II-24 Southern Greenway Design and Construction This project would design and construct a low-maintenance, aesthetically pleasing greenway with plantings that would remain short naturally and would not be attractive to wildlife.

Enhanced Airport Entrances

II-25: Shepherd Road Enhancements Design and Construction At the conclusion of the EA for the project, the design and construction of an aesthetical enhancement with landscaping, signage, and enhanced lighting of the length of Shepherd Road would begin in partnership with the City of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, and the State of

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-9 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Tennessee and in compliance with the parameters of the EA. The project would include the section of Shepherd Road between the State of Tennessee State Road 153 and the Airport.

7.2.4 Medium-Term Projects Summary

Upon completion of the medium-term Capital Improvement Program projects, a substantial portion of the Recommended Alternative would have been realized. Figure 7-2 graphically indicates the medium-term CIP projects.

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-10 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 7-2 MEDIUM-TERM CIP PROJECTS

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-11 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

This page left blank intentionally

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-12 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

7.2.5 Long-Term Capital Improvement Program Projects

This section briefly describes the long-term projects that are planned to be implemented in the ten years between the years of 2018 and 2027. These long-term projects complete development projects that were begun in the short- and medium-term phases. The projects within this phase would complete the implementation of the Capital Improvement Program of the Recommended Alternative.

Environmental

III-1: Northern Greenway Environmental Assessment An EA would be performed to determine the potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating a greenway in the northwest quadrant of the Airport. The greenway would include an area where the public could observe the airfield and where compatible recreational activities would be allowed.

Airfield Projects

III-2: Taxiway K Widening Design and Construction At the conclusion of the CATEX performed in Phase 2, the design and construction of the widening of Taxiway K from its current width of 50 feet to a width of 75 feet would be implemented.

Commercial Service Passenger Terminal and Parking

III-3: Parking Garage/Baggage Make-Up Design and Construction The design and construction of the parking garage/baggage make-up facility would commence upon the conclusion of the EA. The project would include four checked baggage screening devices and sufficient conveyors to allow baggage to be checked in within the parking garage. The project would be accomplished in accordance with the EA.

III-4: Baggage Claim Expansion Design and Construction Upon the conclusion of the EA for the project that would expand the baggage claim wing of the terminal to add a third baggage-claim device project, the design and construction would begin in compliance with the parameters of the EA.

West Development Area

III-5: West Development Area - Phase 3 - Design and Construction Phase 3 of the second FBO facility would be designed consisting of an additional four conventional hangars with a combined total of about 54,000 square feet and approximately 45 additional vehicle parking spaces.

Conventional Hangars

III-6: Conventional Hangar 2 Site Development Design and Construction Upon the conclusion of the EA for the conventional hangar, design and construction of the hangar would be accomplished within the findings of the EA.

III-7: Conventional Hangar 3 Site Development Design and Construction As a result of the findings of the EA for the conventional hangar, design and construction of the hangar would be completed.

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-13 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

T-Hangars

III-8: T-Hangars - Phase 2 Design and Construction This project would design and construct the second eight-unit T-hangar structure and associated apron and taxilanes.

Air Cargo

III-9: Air Cargo Facility Design and Construction An air cargo facility would be designed and constructed containing approximately 50,400 square feet of hangar space, reconstructing the existing 28,000 square yard air cargo apron, as well as vehicular parking and truck parking and turn around areas. This project would also include site drainage features necessary to keep the area from flooding.

Maintenance Center

III-10: Maintenance Center Design and Construction Upon the completion of demolition of the existing structures associated with the Tennessee Air National Guard (TANG), and the determination of a suitable operator, a Maintenance Center would be designed and constructed.

Airport Business Park

III-11: Airport Business Park Land Acquisition – Phase 3 This project would purchase land as it becomes available for sale by the current owners. The purpose of the land acquisition would be for a future Airport Business Park. It is estimated that at least four acres and possibly as much as 16 acres would be purchased in Phase 3.

III-12: Airport Business Park Existing Structures Demolition – Phase 3 Upon the conclusion of the EA, the existing structures on purchased land would be demolished, the debris removed from the site, and the land would be graded in preparation for the Airport Business Park.

III-13: Airport Business Park Site Development Design and Construction The Airport Business Park site development would be designed and constructed upon the conclusion of the EA.

Greenways

III-14: Northern Greenway Design and Construction Upon the conclusion of the EA, the northern greenway would be designed and constructed. The project is anticipated to include an Airport observation area, picnic areas, and childrens’ play area

Enhanced Airport Entrances

III-15: Shepherd Road Bridge Reconfiguration Design and Construction With the conclusion of the EA, the Airport, the city of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, and the Tennessee Department of Transportation would collectively determine the design and construction of a new, re-configured bridge entering the Airport while providing easier access to those travelers not wishing to enter the Airport.

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-14 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

7.2.6 Long-Term Project Summary

Upon completion of the long-term Capital Improvement Program projects, the entire Recommended Alternative would have been realized. Figure 7-3 graphically indicates the long- term CIP projects.

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-15 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

This page left blank intentionally

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-16 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 7-3 LONG-TERM CIP PROJECTS

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-17 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

This page left blank intentionally

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-18 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

7.3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COSTS

The Capital Improvement Program costs have also been divided into the three phases of the Master Plan, the short-, medium, and long-term. More detail of each cost estimate can be found in Appendix G. The short-term, medium-term and long-term projects are shown in Table 7-1, Table 7-2 and Table 7-3 respectively.

Table 7-1 SHORT-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COSTS IN 2009 DOLLARS

Project Number Short-Term Projects (2009-2012) Project Cost Environmental Projects I-1 Air Cargo/Airport Bus. Park/ Hangar Dev./Southern Dev. EA $ 250,000 I-2 West Side Development Environmental Assessment 75,000 Airfield Projects I-3 Taxiway H Design and Construction 4,281,000 I-4 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Land Acquisition and Building Demolition 1,565,000 Commercial Service Passenger Terminal and Parking I-5 Temporary Surface Parking Area Design and Construction 2,686,000 I-6 Passenger Security Screening Checkpoint Expansion Phase 1 700,000 West Development Area I-7 West Development Area Site Improvements Design and Construction 280,700 I-8 West Development Area - Phase 1 Structures Design and Construction 5,665,600 Enhanced Airport Entrances I-9 Jubilee Drive Entrance Improvements Design and Construction 329,000 Miscellaneous I-10 Target Building Demolition 325,000 $ 16,157,300

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-19 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 7-2 MEDIUM-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COSTS IN 2009 DOLLARS

Project Number Medium-Term Projects (2013-2017) Project Cost Environmental II-1 North GA Apron Expansion and Taxiway K Widening CATEX $ 5,000 II-2 Runway 02 and Taxiway A Extension Environmental Assessment 750,000 II-3 Terminal Area Development Projects Environmental Assessment 125,000 II-4 Shepherd Road Enhancements and Bridge Reconstruction EA 500,000 Airfield Projects II-5 Runway 02 and Taxiway A Extension Design and Construction 23,861,000 II-6 North GA Apron Expansion Design and Construction 1,697,000 II-7 Purchase and Demolition of Remaining Properties Within the RPZ 757,000 Commercial Service Passenger Terminal and Parking II-8 Terminal Concourse Expansion Design and Construction 22,675,000 II-9 Terminal Loop Road Widening Design and Construction 77,000 II-10 Consolidated Rental Car QTA Design and Construction 3,308,000 II-11 Passenger Security Screening Checkpoint Expansion - Phase 2 100,000 West Development Area II-12 West Development Area – Phase 2 Design and Construction 4,299,000 Conventional Hangars II-13 Conventional Hangar 1 - Site Development Design and Construction 1,107,000 T-Hangars II-14 Land Acquisition - T-Hangars-Phase 1 1,176,000 II-15 T-Hangars - Phase 1 - Site Improvements Design and Construction 2,809,000 II-16 T-Hangars – Phase 1 – Structures Design and Construction 569,000 Air Cargo II-17 Air Cargo Site Improvements Design and Construction 5,698,000 Maintenance Center II-18 Demolition of Existing TANG Facilities and Site Grading 543,000 II-19 Maintenance Center Site Development Design and Construction 4,228,000 Airport Business Park II-20 Airport Business Park Land Acquisition – Phase 1 1,243,000 II-21 Airport Business Park Existing Structures Demolition – Phase 1 70,000 II-22 Airport Business Park Land Acquisition – Phase 2 1,617,000 II-23 Airport Business Park Existing Structures Demolition – Phase 2 180,000 Greenways II-24 Southern Greenway Design and Construction 247,000 Enhanced Airport Entrances II-25 Shepherd Road Enhancements Design and Construction 342,000 $ 77,983,000

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-20 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 7-3 LONG-TERM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COSTS IN 2009 DOLLARS

Project Number Long-Term Projects (2018-2027) Project Cost Environmental III-1 Northern Greenway Environmental Assessment $ 75,000 Airfield Projects III-2 Taxiway K Widening Design and Construction 420,000 Commercial Service Passenger Terminal and Parking III-3 Parking Garage/Baggage Make-Up Design and Construction 51,955,000 III-4 Baggage Claim Expansion Design and Construction 10,696,000 West Development Area III-5 West Development Area - Phase 3 - Design and Construction 7,545,000 Conventional Hangars III-6 Conventional Hangar 2 Site Development Design and Construction 1,120,000 III-7 Conventional Hangar 3 Site Development Design and Construction 1,120,000 T-Hangars III-8 T-Hangars - Phase 2 Design and Construction 3,378,000 Air Cargo III-9 Air Cargo Facility Design and Construction 3,206,000 Maintenance Center III-10 Maintenance Center Design and Construction 24,313,000 Airport Business Park III-11 Airport Business Park Land Acquisition – Phase 3 864,000 III-12 Airport Business Park Existing Structures Demolition – Phase 3 214,000 III-13 Airport Business Park Site Development Design and Construction 9,416,000 Greenways III-14 Northern Greenway Design and Construction 457,000 Enhanced Airport Entrances III-15 Shepherd Road Bridge Reconfiguration Design and Construction 8,413,000 $ 123,192,000

Over the course of the twenty-year Capital Improvement Program, the projects would continue to evolve. The projects proposed for the medium- and long-term would probably change as events and time change the requirements of and for the projects individually and collectively. The project costs as currently envisioned for the entire Capital Improvement Program are shown in Table 7-4.

Table 7-4 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COSTS IN 2009 DOLLARS Phase Cost Short-term $ 16,157,300 Medium-term 77,983,000 Long-term 123,192,000 Total CIP Costs $ 217,332,300

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-21 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), signed into law on January 1, 1970, established the national environmental policy for the United States. It requires that each Federal agency must assess the environmental impact of each of their actions prior to making a decision. Section 302 of FAA Order 5100.38C, Airport Improvement Program Handbook, states that all projects, in order to be eligible for AIP funding, must undergo environmental processing prior to FAA approval. This section broadly describes:

 Forms of Environmental Analysis  Areas of Potential Environmental Impact  Agency Coordination and Permitting

7.4.1 Forms of Environmental Analysis

There are three types of environmental processing used for Airport Improvement Program projects. They are the Categorical Exclusion (CATEX), the Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). While the airport sponsor or a consultant typically does the documentation for each of these environmental processes, the Federal agency that is authorizing the Federal action, in the case of airports typically the FAA, must approve or disapprove the Federal action based on the findings of the environmental process. Therefore, the FAA has a large stake in not only the veracity of an environmental document, but the process in which it was developed.

Categorical Exclusion

Categorical exclusions (CATEX) are exemptions for certain categories of Federal actions that meet the criteria contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.4, Categorical Exclusion. These actions do not normally have adverse effects on the human environment. In reviewing the list of normally categorically excluded actions, in order to determine if a particular project might be eligible for this process, the FAA must also determine if there are extraordinary circumstances associated with the individual project that may have a significant environmental effect. If a project is not eligible for a CATEX, or the FAA official determines that there are extraordinary circumstances involved with an individual project, that official may decide that an environmental assessment should be prepared.

Environmental Assessment

An Environmental Assessment (EA) is supposed to be a concise document that takes a “hard look” at the environmental effects of a proposed action. The preparation of an EA must be performed following a prescribed process. The EA document is not the decision. It is the documentation of the environmental resources in the area of the proposed Federal action or project and an analysis of how the proposed action would affect the environmental resources. The authorizing FAA official must make the determining decision based on the EA documentation. At a minimum, an EA must be prepared when the proposed action is:

 Not categorically excluded  Normally categorically excluded but involves at least one extraordinary circumstance  Not known to require an environmental impact statement but is not categorically excluded

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-22 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

The EA documentation can be either a short-form or a full report. The EA must develop a statement of the purpose of the proposed project, as well as the need for the proposed project. The EA is obligated to look at not only the alternative proposed by the airport sponsor, but also a no-action alternative and reasonable alternatives including those outside the purview of the airport sponsor. The EA will look at the impact of the proposed alternatives, including the no-action alternative, on a range of environmental resources. Following the submission of the EA to the FAA, the FAA reviews it and, if they can approve the Federal action based on the environmental process and documentation, the FAA would issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). If the FAA cannot approve the project based on the EA, they can request correction of deficiencies, and/or attempt to resolve any outstanding issues. If these measures fail, are inadequate or do not resolve the concerns, the FAA would require additional study through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Upon completion and the issuance of a FONSI, an EA is considered a Federal document. The FAA considers an EA valid for a period of three years beginning when the responsible FAA official accepts the final EA as a Federal document. If major steps towards the implementation of all project phases have not commenced within three years, a written reevaluation from the responsible FAA official would be required.

Environmental Impact Statement

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required when the proposed action, including mitigation, would continue to have a significant impact on the environment. The stated primary purpose of an EIS is “to be an “action-forcing tool” to ensure Federal government programs and actions meet NEPA’s goals and policies.” The EIS looks at specific environmental resources that would be impacted.

An EIS can also be done without a preceding EA, particularly where the FAA official is aware that there is a great potential for a significant environmental impact with a particular project or the preferred alternative of a project. Projects that normally would go directly to an EIS include a new airport or a new runway within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).

As with an EA, the EIS is obligated to look at not only the alternative proposed by the airport sponsor, but also a no-action alternative and reasonable alternatives including those outside the purview of the airport sponsor. The EIS will look at the impact of the proposed alternatives including the no-action alternative. It will have a statement of the purpose and need for the project. The FAA official reviewing the EIS must weigh the purpose and need for the project and the most reasonable alternative for the implementation of the project with the impact the project will have on the environmental resource or resources.

Following the publication of the accepted EIS in the Federal Register, the FAA may issue a Record of Decision (ROD). The final decision on an EIS is considered valid for a period of three years beginning from the date of the “Notice of Availability.” If major steps toward the implementation of all project phases have not commenced within three years, a written reevaluation from the responsible FAA official would be required at each major approval phase.

7.4.2 Areas of Potential Environmental Impact

This section looks at many of the environmental resources that FAA actions often affect. It also looks at those projects within the CIP that might have environmental consequences on these environmental resources. This is not a closed list. The Airport, the FAA, or the public might

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-23 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

identify additional environmental resources as individual projects enter the environmental process. There may also be CIP projects that may not be identified within this section as potentially affecting an environmental resource due to the very limited scoping that the majority of these projects have received at this point.

Air Quality

Development projects that exceed one or more of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the six criteria pollutants require air quality analysis if they are proposed to occur in areas listed by the EPA as non-attainment areas. The City of Chattanooga and the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport are located in a non-attainment area for the criterion PM2.5. PM 2.5 is a measure of particles in the atmosphere with a diameter of less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers.

Biotic Resources

Various endangered and threatened biotic resources have been identified in Hamilton County, Tennessee: Of these biotic resources, only the Snail Darter, Percina tanasi, is considered to be in the actual environs of the Airport. Reportedly, the Snail Darter can be found within that portion of the South Chickamauga Creek that borders the Airport to the west. None of the projects within the CIP is anticipated to affect the South Chickamauga Creek or the Snail Darter.

Coastal Resources

The Airport is not located within and does not affect a coastal zone. Therefore, the procedures of 16 USC Chapter 33 Coastal Zone Management do not apply.

Compatible Land Use:

Determination of compatible land use near the Airport will be required based on the identified traffic patterns and noise analysis completed as part of formal environmental analyses done for the various CIP projects.

Construction Impacts

During construction, there is the potential for increased air quality, water quality and noise impacts in addition to those normally associated with Airport operations. All construction related to future Airport development projects should be designed and specifications written to comply with guidelines set forth in FAA AC 150/5370-10A, Standards for Specifying the Construction of Airports.

40 CFR Part 122 addresses construction disturbances of one acre or more. It would require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the specific site. Part 122.26(a)(1)(ii) requires a NDPES permit for storm water discharges due to construction activities disturbing at least five acres of land.

The Tennessee Codes Annotated (TCA) §69-3-108, Tennessee Water Quality Control Act of 1977 requires a Water Pollution Control (WPC) Construction Stormwater General Permit be obtained if an area of one or more acres is cleared, graded, or excavated or if the project disturbs less than one acre of land and the project is part of a larger common plan of development or sale. Application for a permit is begun with the submittal of a Stormwater Construction Notice of Intent form along with a current site specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-24 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Section 4(f) Land

None of the projects within the proposed CIP requires the use of any publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife, or waterfowl refuge, or historic site lands of national, state, or local significance. Therefore, the provisions of the Department of Transportation Act for the protection of 4(f) lands do not apply.

Farmland

While there are soil types located within the vicinity of the Airport that are designated as prime farmland; land having the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimal use of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, or products; none of this land is currently in agricultural use. There are no farmlands classified as unique, land used for producing high-value food and fiber crops, within Hamilton County. The area surrounding the Airport, with the exception of adjacent to the South Chicamauga Creek, is mostly urbanized with urban support services.

Floodplains

In compliance with Executive Order 11988, Floodplains, and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection, all airport development projects must avoid floodplains, if a practicable alternative exists. As illustrated in Figure 2-11, the majority of the Airport is located in a 100-year flood plain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Therefore, for the majority of the CIP projects, no practicable alternative exists. Therefore, the projects must be designed to minimize adverse impact to the floodplain’s “natural and beneficial values” as well as minimize the potential risks for flood-related property loss and impacts on human safety, health, and welfare.

Hazardous Materials

Hazardous wastes are defined as solid wastes that are “ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic” in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) at 40 CFR Part 261. According to 49 CFR Part 172, Table 172.101, hazardous substances are defined as “hazardous waste, hazardous air pollutants, hazardous substances designated as such pursuant to the Clean Water Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act and elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions, or substances listed in 40 CFR Part 302 that pose substantial harm to human health or environmental resources”. However, it is determined that petroleum or natural gas substances and materials are not included.

The issue of hazardous materials most often comes into play for an airport when they are purchasing land. To help protect airports from the costs or the liability associated with hazardous materials or contamination, the FAA requires that an airport sponsor hire a competent specialist to complete an Environmental Due Diligence Audit (EDDA) before acquiring any land for airport purposes. This is of particular importance where there is known previous activity on the site that may include the handling and/or distribution of chemical or petroleum products.

Historical, Architectural, Archaeological and Cultural Resources

Review of the Tennessee Historical Commission on-line database did not reveal a record of properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places within the confines of the Airport or any of the projects currently proposed in the CIP. It is advised however, that the State Historical Preservation Officer be further contacted as a part of any further environmental analyses in conjunction with these projects.

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-25 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Light Emissions and Visual Effects

Additional runway and taxiway lighting will be installed within the Airport property as part of the extension of Runway 02 and Taxiway A. These lights are proposed to be at or near surface level. The light emissions from the additional lights would be confined to Airport property, and would be shielded as much as possible from residences.

Visual effects deal broadly with the extent to which Airport development contrasts with the existing environment, architecture, historic or cultural setting, or land use planning. Many of the proposed CIP projects were developed in response to the community’s desire to improve the aesthetic appeal of the community along Lee Highway/Brainerd Road. The establishment of the Southern Greenway, the Jubilee Entrance and the Airport Business Park are direct results of the Airport and the community working together to enhance their neighborhood.

Natural Resources and Energy Supply

A project is considered to have a significant impact when its construction, operation, or maintenance would cause demands that would exceed available or future natural resources or energy supplies. None of the proposed CIP projects is anticipated to consume more energy or natural resources than are currently available.

Noise

A significant noise impact would occur if noise sensitive areas were to experience an increase in the day/night noise level (DNL) of 1.5 decibels or more at or above a DNL of 65 decibels when compared to the no action alternative for the same timeframe. The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport has not had noise contours run since 1997. It is likely that the noise contour footprints would be smaller than modeled previously, as aircraft that operate to and from the Airport today are quieter than those previously modeled are. The proposed displaced thresholds on the Runway will prevent aircraft from flying any lower or closer to the community than they do today. The environmental analysis for the extension of Runway 02/20 and Taxiway A will most probably be an environmental assessment that will necessitate the running of the FAA’s Integrated Noise Model (INM), which will produce the new noise contours.

Socioeconomic Environmental Justice, and Children’s Health and Safety Risks

It is not anticipated that any of the CIP projects would unfairly and disproportionately affect low- income or minority populations in a unique way. However, as the environmental analysis for the projects is conducted, it is important that local human resource agencies be contacted to determine if the community adjacent to the Airport meets the criteria of DOT Order 5610.2, Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Population.

The Airport does not intend to purchase land through eminent domain. Rather, they intend to purchase property as it becomes available to the market. No residences have been identified for purchase for either the Airport Business Park or the Southern Greenway.

Solid Waste

Several CIP projects include the demolition of existing facilities. Each of the projects will produce an initial increase in solid waste from construction activities, but solid waste generation from typical daily operations is not expected to occur. It is recommended that the City of Chattanooga’s Public

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-26 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Works Department be contacted as a part of the environmental analyses to determine the anticipated future capacity of existing landfills.

Water Quality

The FAA must evaluate project-related discharges, especially those having the potential to affect navigable waterways, municipal drinking water supplies, important sole-source aquifers, or protected groundwater supplies. In particular, construction activities or seasonal airport anti- icing/deicing activities are major concerns.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 122 addresses construction disturbances of one acre or more. Part 122.26(a)(1)(ii) requires a NDPES permit for storm water discharges due to construction activities disturbing at least five acres of land. The Tennessee Codes Annotated (TCA) §69-3-108, Tennessee Water Quality Control Act of 1977 requires a Water Pollution Control (WPC) Construction Stormwater General Permit be obtained if an area of one or more acres is cleared, graded, or excavated or if the project disturbs less than one acre of land and the project is part of a larger common plan of development or sale. Application for a permit is begun with the submittal of a Stormwater Construction Notice of Intent form along with a current; site specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

Wetlands, Jurisdictional or Non-Jurisdictional

Navigable waters of the U.S. are those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are used, have been used in the past, or may be susceptible to use to transport interstate or foreign commerce (33 CFR Section 329.4). The term, “navigable waters of the U.S.” includes wetlands connected or adjacent to navigable waters of the U.S. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) governs the dredging and filling of navigable waters of the U.S. These navigable waters come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) who use 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330 to define the wetlands. To conduct dredge or fill activities in these wetlands, the Corps must issue a permit authorizing those activities. Non-jurisdictional wetlands do not involve navigable waters because they are not connected to or adjacent to navigable waters of the United States. Dredge and fill activities in these wetlands do not require Corps approvals, but these wetlands are natural resources FAA must assess under NEPA.

Two actions that might affect wetlands are those that require disturbing the water table of an area in which a wetland is located or indirectly affecting a wetland because it impacts areas upstream or downstream of the wetland or it introduces secondary development that would affect a wetland. Figure 2-12 shows the wetland areas in or near the Airport. None of these wetlands would be directly impacted by any of the proposed CIP projects.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

The Airport’s property is immediately adjacent to the east side of the South Chickamauga Creek at approximately 10 river miles upstream from the Creek’s confluence with the Tennessee River. Neither the Tennessee River, nor the Creek, are in either the Wild and Scenic Rivers System or the National Rivers Inventory, and therefore the provisions outlined in Public Law 90-542, The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, do not apply to the Airport’s CIP projects.

7.4.3 Agency Coordination and Permitting

Acceptance of Federal grant funding requires compliance with the requirements set forth in the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing the provisions of the National

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-27 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1500 through 1508, Department of Transportation Order DOT 5610.1C, and other related statutes and directives. The likely environmental processing identified in this chapter does not eliminate the possibility of additional or more detailed environmental processing. Careful coordination with the responsible FAA official should be conducted for every project utilizing Federal funds. In addition, it is recommended that coordination with the following agencies also be conducted as part of development actions utilizing federal funding or requiring environmental processing:

 United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency concerning impacts to flora or fauna and biotic communities associated with proposed development  Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for information on using TVA shoreline property or public land  Tennessee State Planning Office serves as the Tennessee State Clearinghouse for Federal activities  Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation (TDEC) Division of Air Pollution Control (APC) for issues dealing with asbestos removal or gasoline dispensing facilities permits, as well as air quality  TDEC Tennessee Historical Commission in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act  TDEC Water Pollution Control (WPC) Construction Stormwater General Permit and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Construction Permit for construction projects that disturb land through clearing, grubbing or excavation more than one acre of land.  Hamilton County Soil Conservation District if land currently used for agricultural purposes is impacted  City of Chattanooga Parks and Recreation Department and Hamilton County Department of Parks and Recreation concerning planned public parks and recreational areas 7.4.4 Environmental Summary

While the guidelines identified in this chapter comply with the National Environmental Protection Act requirements, additional coordination and environmental processing may be necessary with state and/or local agencies to comply with their rules and regulations.

The next chapter, Financial Feasibility Analysis, will provide potential funding sources for each of the CIP projects. It will also provide details on the operating structure of the Airport and the expectations for funding these and other capital projects.

Facilities Implementation Plan 7-28 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

CHAPTER 8 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY

8.1 INTRODUCTION

The objective of this chapter is to identify a strategic financial plan (referred to herein as the Financial Plan). This chapter will evaluate the Recommended Alternatives from the Capital Improvement Program described in Chapter 7 of the Master Plan Update.

The Financial Plan includes an overview of the capital improvements recommended for the Airport over a 19-year planning period, with emphasis on the four-year, short-term development period. This analysis will assess the financial implications of Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority undertaking the proposed projects. Further, the Airport’s ability to generate future revenues sufficient to exceed projected Airport operating and capital expenses will be examined. The following summarizes the components of the Financial Plan:

 Eligibility for funding by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Tennessee Department of Transportation (TNDOT), and local sources  A review of existing tenant leases, agreements and contracts  A compilation and review of the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority’s historical revenues and expenses  An order of magnitude estimate of Airport revenues and expenses and a pro forma cash flow analysis to estimate future revenues and expenses

8.2 ENABLING LEGISLATION

The Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority (CMAA) was created in July 1985 under the authority of the Tennessee General Assembly in accordance the provisions of the Metropolitan Airport Authority Act (the Act), Tennessee Code, Annotated, Section 42-4-101 et seq., as amended. The CMAA is an instrumentality and political subdivision of the State of Tennessee and a public corporation.

The purpose of the CMAA is to:

 Establish, maintain, and operate a unified and coordinated Airport system  Ensure the orderly and proper use and growth of the Airport  Ensure that the maximum public benefit is obtained from the Airport

Further, it is the responsibility of the CMAA to:

 Ensure proper planning and establish Airport needs in the future  Enhance business, industry, and trade  Promote public transportation and commerce  Provide an economical use of a public airport for the welfare, safety, and convenience of the public

Financial Feasibility 8-1 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

The CMAA is composed of seven members, all of whom are appointed by the Mayor and Council of the City of Chattanooga. At least five members must be residents of the City of Chattanooga.

8.3 FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK

The CMAA’s financial operations are accounted for on a fiscal year (FY) basis, ending June 30. As the owner and operator of the Airport, the CMAA has the right to enter into agreements, leases and contracts with tenants and to grant rights, privileges, and services related to the use of the Airport. In exchange, tenants compensate the CMAA for occupancy of Airport facilities and utilization of services.

The majority of Airport revenues are generated by three types of tenants: the commercial passenger airlines, public automobile parking, and rental car companies. Other tenants and services also contribute revenue to the CMAA, although to a lesser degree. The following provides a brief summary of key provisions from certain agreements, contracts or leases with these tenants.

8.3.1 Commercial Passenger Airlines

The Airport is currently served by six regional airlines providing scheduled commercial air service on five airline brands. Atlantic Southeast Airlines (ASA) doing business as (d/b/a) the Delta Connection provides 10 daily departures to Delta Air Lines hub in Atlanta, GA. Piedmont Airlines and PSA Airlines each d/b/a US Airways Express provide seven daily non-stop departures to US Airways hub in Charlotte, NC and one daily departure to the Ronald Regan National Airport in Washington, DC. American Eagle provides two daily departures to American Airlines hubs in Chicago, IL and one daily departure to its hub in Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX. Mesaba Airlines and Pinnacle Airlines, each d/b/a The Delta Connection, collectively provide three daily departures to the Delta Air Lines hub in Memphis, TN. Allegiant Airlines provides seven weekly departures to the Orlando-Sanford Airport in Orlando, FL and four weekly departures to St. Petersburg, FL.

The airlines operating at the Airport do not currently operate under a contractual agreement or terminal lease with the CMAA. Airline rates and charges were calculated pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 1989, which was entered into between the CMAA and certain airlines then operating at the Airport, in connection with the issuance of the CMAA’s 1990 Airport Revenue Bonds. These bonds were issued to fund the 1990 terminal development and expansion project. Airport rates and charges are currently adjusted annually at the discretion of the CMAA.

Table 8-1 presents a summary of the current airline rates and charges charged by the CMAA to the commercial airlines operating at the Airport for the CMAA’s fiscal year ending June 30, 2010.

Financial Feasibility 8-2 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 8-1 FY 2010 AIRLINE RATES AND CHARGES Monthly Annual Airline Terminal Rentals Area in Square Feet Rate Rental Rental Airline Exclusive/Preferential 13,697 $28.76 $32,827 $393,991 Airline Baggage Claim 12,756 $28.76 $30,572 $366,863 Total Airline Terminal $63,404 $760,845

Other Airline Average Monthly Annual Rates & Charges Quantity Rate Fees/Rents Fees/Rents Airline Landing Fees 320,904 units $1.90 $50,810 $609,717 Airline Security Fees 312,497 enplanements $0.94 $24,387 $292,648 Airline Loading Bridge 4 bridges $1,704 $6,816 $81,795 Ground Handling 364 Turns $360 $10,308 $123,698 Total Other Airline Fees $92,322 $1,107,858 Total Airline Areas $155,726 $1,686,712 Source CMAA FY 2010 Budget.

8.3.2 Passenger Parking Facilities Management Agreement: Republic Parking Systems

The Airport provides short-, intermediate- and long-term parking facilities. There are 173 short- term spaces at a customer cost of $0.75 per 20-minute segment to a maximum of $13.00 per day. There are 220 intermediate spaces at a customer cost of $8.00 per day and there are 739 long- term parking spaces at a customer cost of $8.00 per day. The parking operation at the Airport is managed by Republic Parking Systems (Republic) under a management agreement which expired December 31, 2009, but allows for a one-year renewal. Under the agreement, CMAA pays Republic a management fee of $31,000 per year plus it’s covered operating expenses. At the discretion of the CMAA, it may also pay Republic an annual incentive fee equal to 10 percent of the management fee or $3,100. The CMAA retains all revenues in excess of the management fee and covered expenses.

8.3.3 Rental Car Agreement: Avis

The CMAA entered into an agreement with Avis Rent A Car System (Avis) for a Service Facility on February 2, 2009 for a nine-year term with one additional 10-year renewal option at the discretion of the CMAA. Under a separate month to month agreement, Avis leases counter space in the terminal building, 22 ready/return spaces located directly south of the terminal building, and a quick turn around (QTA) facility located east of the terminal area. The QTA is a wash and re-fueling facility with approximately 150 automobile parking spaces, one automated wash facility, and a 10,000 gallon unleaded fuel tank. Light automobile maintenance is also performed at the QTA. The rental rates increase annually based upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI). In addition to the rental rates set forth below, Avis pays the CMAA a concession privilege fee of 10 percent of its gross receipts. Table 8-2 summarizes the rentals paid by Avis.

Financial Feasibility 8-3 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 8-2 AVIS RENTALS Space Monthly Annually Ground Rent $1,304 $15,644 Service Facility $3,600 $43,200 Concession Fee (MAG) $21,439 $257,264 Source : CMAA FY 2010 Budget.

8.3.4 Rental Car Agreement: Budget

Budget Rent-a-Car (Budget) operates at the Airport on a month-to-month basis under the same terms of a 1998 agreement which expired on December 31, 2002. The leased premises include counter space in the terminal building, an off-Airport QTA located on nearby Sheppard Road, and 12 ready/return parking spaces south of the commercial passenger terminal building. The QTA includes one automated wash facility, a 2,500 gallon unleaded fuel tank, and a 2,500 diesel fuel tank. The rental rates increase annually based upon the CPI. In addition to the rental rates set forth below, Budget pays the CMAA a 10 percent concession fee based on its gross receipts. Table 8-3 summarizes the other rentals paid by Budget.

Table 8-3 BUDGET RENTALS Space Monthly Annually Ground Rent $1,120 $13,444 Service Facility N/A N/A Concession Fee (MAG) $11,317 $135,800 Source CMAA FY 2010 Budget.

8.3.5 Rental Car Agreement: Enterprise

Enterprise Rent-a-Car (Enterprise) operates at the Airport on a month-to-month basis under the same terms of a 1998 agreement which expired on December 31, 2002. The leased premises include counter space in the terminal building and 13 ready/return parking spaces. The rental rates increase annually based upon the CPI. In addition to the rental rates set forth below, Enterprise pays the CMAA a 10 percent concession fee based on its gross receipts. Table 8-4 summarizes the other rentals paid by Enterprise.

Table 8-4 ENTERPRISE RENTALS Space Monthly Annually Ticket Counter & Ready/Return $1,104 $13,244 Service Facility N/A N/A Concession Fee (MAG) $11,993 $143,915 Source CMAA FY 2010 Budget.

8.3.6 Rental Car Agreement: Hertz

The CMAA entered into an agreement with Hertz Corporation (Hertz) effective April 1, 2008 for a period of two years with one three-year renewal option for its Service Facility. Under a separate, month-to-month agreement, Hertz leases counter space in the terminal building and 27

Financial Feasibility 8-4 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update ready/return parking spaces located southeast of the terminal building. The rental rates increase annually based upon the CPI. In addition to the rental rates set forth below, Hertz pays the CMAA a 10 percent concession fee based on its gross receipts. Table 8-5 summarizes the other rentals paid by Hertz.

Table 8-5 HERTZ RENTALS Space Monthly Annually Ticket Counter & Ground Rent $1,387 $16,644 Service Facility $1,240 $14,875 Concession Fee (MAG) $26,857 $322,283 Source: CMAA FY 2010 Budget.

8.3.7 Rental Car Agreement: National

The agreement with National Rent A Car (National) expired December 31, 2002. Since that time, National has operated at the Airport on a month-to-month basis. The leased premises include counter space in the terminal building, a QTA facility located east of the Airport, and 27 ready/return parking spaces. The QTA facility has an area for cleaning vehicles, space to store up to 100 automobiles, and a 12,000 gallon unleaded fuel tank. The rental rates increase annually based upon the CPI. In addition to the rental rates set forth below, National pays the CMAA a 10 percent concession fee based on its gross receipts. Table 8-6 summarizes the other rentals paid by National.

Table 8-6 NATIONAL RENTALS Space Monthly Annually Ticket Counter and Ground Rent $1,254 $15,044 Service Facility $253 $3,036 Concession Fee (MAG) $18,376 $220,508 Source CMAA FY 2010 Budget.

8.3.8 Additional CMAA Leases

CMAA also has agreements and/or leases with the numerous other tenants at the Airport, as shown in Table 8-7.

Financial Feasibility 8-5 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 8-7 ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS AND LEASES Annual Renewal Tenant Type Rentals Termination Options Air Host Retail/Food & Beverage $65,000 Month to Month Hold Over Chattanooga Aero Hangar/Services $28,903 June 30, 2010 No Choo-Choo Aero Hangar/Services $32,739 Mar. 31, 2020 No TAC Air Hangar/Services $592,962 Sept. 30, 2001 Yes1 Executive Jet Hangar/Services $24,363 US Forest Service Hangar/Services $121,968 April 14, 2022 No RBG LLC Hangar/Services $65,483 Dec. 18, 2009 Yes2 Mountain Air Cargo Landing Fees $24,424 Month to Month Hold Over TSA Space Rental $83,550 Aug. 3, 2012 No FAA Weather Observation Space Rental $9,526 Sept. 30, 2010 No 1st TN Bank ATM $1,800 July 31, 2010 No ABG Caulking Space Rental $12,319 June 30, 2010 No Other Misc. Misc/Property $118,038 Varies Varies Source CMAA FY 2010 Budget. 1 Lease provides for six, five-year renewal periods, to approximately September 20, 2031. 2 Two, five-year renewal periods.

8.4 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES PROJECTS SUMMARY

Based on the projected facility requirements identified in Chapter 4 and the evaluation of alternatives in Chapter 5, Chapter 7 identified a list of recommended projects and associated cost estimates. These projects will be discussed in this section.

These cost estimates are on an order of magnitude basis and are presented in 2009 dollars. As stated in Appendix G to this Master Plan Update, planning level cost estimates consider gross areas multiplied by unit cost factors. The planning level costs are estimates and are not meant to represent final bids or negotiated prices. Actual costs will vary (perhaps substantially) from the amounts shown due to inflation, shortages of materials, limited number of bids, or other factors. Allowances have been included for each project that take into consideration contractor overhead and design costs, as well as construction administration and resident inspection costs as necessary. In addition, a contingency factor is applied, which may be as high as 20 percent (20%). This contingency factor is applied to account for variables in the scope, final design, and bids for construction.

In order to provide realistic assumptions regarding the availability of funding for the projects recommended in the Recommended Alternatives, it is necessary to estimate the phasing requirements of each project based on the need for enhanced safety, security, and/or demand for the facilities during the 19-year planning period. For the purpose of this Financial Plan, Airport improvements discussed in Chapter 7 are included in one of three general project phasing periods based on an estimate of each project’s estimated implementation need. Following are the project phasing periods used for this purpose:

 Short-Term Development Period – Projects anticipated to be implemented from 2009 through 2012. The Financial Plan will focus on the projects occurring in this period.  Medium-Term Development Period – Projects anticipated to be implemented from 2013 through 2017.

Financial Feasibility 8-6 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

 Long-Term Development Period – Projects anticipated to be implemented from 2018 through 2027. The projects associated with the Recommended Alternatives are summarized on Table 8-8, Table 8-9, and Table 8-10 by their phasing period.

Table 8-8 SHORT-TERM DEVELOPMENT PERIOD Project No. Project Description I-1 Air Cargo, Airport Business Park, Hangar Development and Southern Development Environmental Assessments I-2 West Side Development Environmental Assessment I-3 Taxiway “H” Design and Construction I-4 Runway Protection Zone Land Acquisition and Building Demolition I-5 Temporary Surface Parking Area Design and Construction I-6 Passenger Security Screening Checkpoint Expansion Phase I I-7 West Development Area Site Improvements Design and Construction I-8 West Development Area – Phase I Structures Design and Construction I-9 Jubilee Drive Entrance Improvements Design and Construction I-10 Target Building Demolition

Table 8-9 MEDIUM-TERM DEVELOPMENT PERIOD Project No. Project Description II-1 North GA Apron Expansion & Taxiway “K” Widening CATEX II-2 Runway 02 and Taxiway “A” Extension Environmental Assessment II-3 Terminal Area Development Projects Environmental Assessment II-4 Shepherd Road Enhancements and Bridge Reconstruction EA II-5 Runway 02 & Taxiway “A” Extension Design and Construction II-6 North GA Apron Expansion Design and Construction II-7 Purchase & Demolition of Remaining Properties Within the RPZ II-8 Terminal Concourse Expansion Design and Construction II-9 Terminal Loop Road Widening Design and Construction II-10 Consolidated Rental Car QTA Design and Construction II-11 Passenger Security Screening Checkpoint Expansion, Phase 2 II-12 West Development Area, Phase 2 Design and Construction II-13 Conventional Hangar 1, Site Development and Construction II-14 Land Acquisition, T-Hangars, Phase 1 II-15 T-Hangars, Phase 1, Site Improvements Design and Construction II-16 T-Hangars, Phase 1, Structures Design and Construction II-17 Air Cargo Site Improvements Design and Construction II-18 Demolition of Existing TANG Facilities and Site Grading II-19 Maintenance Center Site Development Design and Construction II-20 Airport Business Park Land Acquisition, Phase I II-21 Airport Business Park Existing Structures Demolition, Phase I II-22 Airport Business Park Land Acquisition, Phase 2 II-23 Airport Business Park Existing Structures Demolition, Phase 2 II-24 Southern Greenway Design and Construction II-25 Shepherd Road Enhancements Design and Construction

Financial Feasibility 8-7 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 8-10 LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT PERIOD Project No. Project Description III-1 Northern Greenway Environmental Assessment III-2 Taxiway “K” Widening Design and Construction III-3 Parking Garage, Baggage Make-up Design and Construction III-4 Baggage Claim Expansion Design and Construction III-5 West Development Area, Phase 3, Design and Construction III-6 Conventional Hangar 2 Site Development Design and Construction III-7 Conventional Hangar 3 Site Development Design and Construction III-8 T-Hangars, Phase 2 Design and Construction III-9 Air Cargo Facility Design and Construction III-10 Maintenance Center Design and Construction III-11 Airport Business Park Land Acquisition, Phase 3 III-12 Airport Business Park Existing Structures Demolition, Phase 3 III-13 Airport Business Park Site Development Design and Construction III-14 Northern Greenway Design and Construction III-15 Shepherd Road Bridge Reconfiguration Design and Construction

8.5 ADDITIONAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

In addition to the projects included in the Facilities Implementation Plan, the CMAA has additional capital projects included in its current five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Together, the Recommended Alternative projects and the CMAA’s current CIP Projects are referred to as the “Capital Projects.” Table 8-11 presents the Capital Projects included in the CMAA’s current CIP, but not included in the Recommended Alternatives.

Table 8-11 ADDITIONAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Project No. Project Description Short-term CIP Projects (2009-2012) CIP-1 Taxiways A, B, and C Relocation and Reconstruction CIP-2 Security Enhancements CIP-3 West Apron Construction CIP-4 Passenger Security Checkpoint Expansion and Gift Shop/Restaurant Relocation CIP-5 CT-80 Facility Modification Phase 2 CIP-6 Terminal Ramp Rehab/N. Ramp – Design and Construction CIP-7 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) – Additional Land Acquisition CIP-8 Runway 2 Extension Design

Medium-term CIP Projects (2013-2017) CIP-6 Terminal Ramp Rehabilitation/North Ramp – Design and Construction Source: CIP Projects - CMAA

Financial Feasibility 8-8 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

8.6 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES

An airport does not typically satisfy its capital development funding needs with internal funding sources alone. Federal, state and private funding, together with airport funds and bond proceeds (supported by airport revenues and/or municipal support), are usually combined to produce the total funds required to undertake a capital project. These sources of funding include: FAA, state, private funds (tenant or third party provided), airport funds, Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs), and loans or bond proceeds. Federal sources, including Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds, are subject to modification by Congress (the authorizing entity) or other entities having jurisdiction over a particular funding source.

The specific project eligibility criteria vary depending upon the funding source. In identifying potential sources of funds, it is necessary to examine each project element to determine its eligibility for each program or funding source. It is also important to consider the availability of funds for each funding source. The following paragraphs briefly describe the primary external funding sources which may be available to provide funding for the Recommended Alternatives.

8.6.1 Federal Aviation Administration – Aviation Trust Fund

Congress began appropriating money for airport development in 1946 through the enactment of the Federal Airport Act. Since that time, Congress has passed multiple legislative measures intended to develop the national air transportation system in the United States. Congress enacted the Airport and Airway Revenue Act of 1970, which established the Airport and Airways Trust Fund. The Trust Fund is intended to provide the primary source of funding for FAA operations, facilities, and equipment, as well as funding for the development of certain public use airports. The Trust Fund is supported by a series of aviation-related excise taxes through charges on passenger tickets, cargo waybills, and aviation gasoline and jet fuel.

The majority of the Trust Fund is supported by passenger ticket taxes paid by users of the commercial airline industry. As a result, the amount of aviation taxes generated in a given year to support the Trust Fund is dependent on the national level of commercial aviation activity and total revenues generated from these activities. The revenues supporting the Trust Fund come from a variety of aviation user fees and fuel taxes. These tax revenues were authorized until September 30, 2007, by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-34). The authority for these taxes has been extended through March 31, 2010. Revenue sources include:

(i) 7.5 percent ticket tax (ii) $3.60 flight segment tax5 (iii) 6.25 percent tax on cargo waybills (iv) 4.3 cents per gallon on commercial aviation fuel (v) 19.3 cents per gallon on general aviation gasoline (vi) 21.8 cents per gallon on general aviation jet fuel (vii) $16.10 international arrival tax6 (viii) $16.10 international departure tax (ix) 7.5 percent “frequent flyer” award tax7 (x) 7.5 percent ticket tax at rural airports8

5 A flight segment is defined as “a single take-off and a single landing.” The flight segment fee has been inflation adjusted (rounded off to the nearest dime) on an annual basis since January 1, 2004. 6 Both the international arrival and departure taxes have been adjusted (rounded off to the nearest dime) for inflation since January 1, 1999. The rate for US flights to and from Alaska or Hawaii is $8.00. 7 This tax is not limited to frequent flyers but includes all second party purchases of airline miles.

Financial Feasibility 8-9 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Since the creation of the Trust Fund in 1970, aviation excise taxes have exceeded spending commitments from the FAA’s appropriations resulting in an aggregate surplus. However, since 2001, the Trust Fund’s uncommitted balance has declined as Trust Fund revenues have been lower than projected. This trend has been exaggerated as the US economy entered an economic recession beginning in December 2007. The economic slowdown, combined with a 60 percent increase in the cost of aviation jet fuel in 2008, contributed to a net airline industry loss of $9.5 billion according the Air Transport Association. The airline industry has responded to the national and global economic slowdown, as well as volatile changes in oil prices, by attempting to enhance yields by implementing a series of capacity cuts, by reductions in aircraft and employees, and by other measures. The resulting declines in passenger traffic, aircraft operations, and fuel consumption have caused revenues generated to support the Trust Fund to be approximately 4 percent less than estimated by the FAA in Federal Fiscal Year 2009.

In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, these taxes produced approximately $10.9 billion, which is $1.3 billion less than estimated and contributed to a reduction in the balance of the Trust Fund from $10.1 billion to $9.7 billion. The lower tax collection caused a reduction in the uncommitted balance from $928 million in 2009 to $334 million in 2010. The FAA’s budget for 2010 estimates that total aviation excise taxes will increase to $11.7 billion.

As shown in Figure 8-1, the total aviation excise taxes paid to the Trust Fund increased from $10.8 billion in Federal Fiscal Year 2005 to a high of $12.4 billion in Federal Fiscal Year 2008. Total aviation excise taxes decreased by $1.6 billion from Federal Fiscal Year 2008 to Federal Fiscal Year 2009.

8 Rural airport passengers pay only the rural airport ticket tax. They do not pay the segment tax on the flight to or from the rural airport, and do not pay the general ticket tax in addition to the rural airport ticket tax.

Financial Feasibility 8-10 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 8-1 AVIATION TRUST FUND FUNDING SOURCES

According to a report to Congress from the US Government Accountability Office, further declines in the Trust Fund’s uncommitted balance could pose future budgetary challenges for the FAA. Furthermore, if the Trust Fund revenues continue to fall below projected levels, the FAA’s ability to cover existing and future funding obligations could be jeopardized.9

The funding of the FAA (including FAA operations, facilities / equipment, and the Airport Improvement Program, among other things) is provided from a combination of the Trust Fund and a transfer of funds from the General Fund, as appropriated by the US Congress. However, according to the FAA, funding appropriated from the General Fund is limited to FAA operations. As shown in Figure 8-2, the amount of funding required from the General Fund for FAA operations has ranged from approximately 16 percent of the FAA’s total budget in Federal Fiscal Year 2008 to 25 percent in Federal Fiscal Year 2009. Figure 8-2 presents this historical relationship from Federal Fiscal Year 2005 through 2009.

9 US Government Accountability Office, Commercial Aviation Airline Industry Contraction Due to Volatile Fuel Prices and Falling Demand Affects Airports, Passengers and Federal Government Revenues. April 2009.

Financial Feasibility 8-11 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 8-2 FAA FUNDING

100%

90%

80%

70%

80% 75% 60% 82% 81% 84% 50%

40%

30%

20% 25% 20% 10% 18% 19% 16% 0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

General Fund Trust Fund

In his FY 2008 Budget, President George W. Bush called for a change in the funding structure for the Trust Fund, from an excise tax-based system into a cost-based user system for commercial air carriers and general aviation. Congress may address the Trust Fund issue with the authorization of a new or revised aviation excise tax or user fee structure to support the Trust Fund. At the time of this Master Plan Update’s printing, this mechanism of funding the Trust Fund is currently in review for reauthorization by Congress.

8.6.2 Overview and Status of the Airport Improvement Program

The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 authorized the capital grant-in-aid program known as the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The AIP is funded by the Trust Fund. Congress authorizes and appropriates funds used for eligible airport improvements which are administered by the FAA. AIP eligible projects include airport planning, airport development; noise compatibility programs (80 percent at large- and medium-hub airports); and terminal development at all but large-hub airports. An airport must be included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) to be eligible to receive a grant from the AIP. Congress amends the Airport and Airway Improvement Act from time to time, as required, to authorize funding levels on an annual or multi-year basis. However, as depicted on Figure 8-3, Congress typically appropriates less AIP funding than the authorization allows. Since its inception in 1982, the total amount of the AIP appropriated by Congress is approximately $8.6 billion less than its authorization authority.

Financial Feasibility 8-12 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Figure 8-3 HISTORICAL AIP AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATION 1982-2009

$4.5

$4.0

$3.5

$3.0 $ Billions $2.5

$2.0

$1.5

$1.0

$0.5

$0.0 1982 1984 1986 19881990 1992 1994 19961998 2000 2002 2004 20062008

Federal Fiscal Year

Authorization Appropriation

In combination with an allocation from the General Fund (approximately 25 percent in 2009), the Trust Fund provides for the funding of the FAA, including the AIP. In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, the Aviation Trust Fund is estimated to provide approximately 75 percent or $12.9 billion of the FAA’s budget ($17 billion). The FAA’s budget authority included approximately $3.5 billion in funding for the AIP program.

On December 13, 2003, President Bush signed into law the Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Vision 100). Also known as the FAA Reauthorization Bill, Congress authorized the AIP for $14 billion over a period of four years, from 2004 through 2007. Vision 100 provides that certain projects are eligible for AIP funding at the 95 percent level at all commercial service airports classified by the FAA as “small-hub” or smaller. Large- and medium-hub airports are eligible for funding at the 75 percent level. As defined by the FAA, the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is a “non-hub” airport and therefore is currently eligible for FAA funding at 95 percent for AIP eligible projects. It should be noted there is a distinction between the eligibility and justification of a project to be funded by the AIP.

Under multiple authorization extension acts, Congress authorized the AIP at $3.675 billion for 2008 and $3.9 billion for 2009. The Appropriations Committees of the US House of Representatives and US Senate ultimately appropriated the AIP at $3.5 billion for both 2008 and 2009.

The President’s 2010 budget also includes proposed AIP appropriations of $3.5 billion, or effectively the same level as 2009. However, in September 2009, the House and Senate passed a bill extending FAA programs and aviation excise taxes through December 31, 2009. This extension has been further continued to March 31, 2010. Congress has been working on a multi-

Financial Feasibility 8-13 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

year FAA reauthorization bill since the expiration of Vision 100. The current House reauthorization bill would authorize the AIP for approximately $15 billion from 2010 through 2013. The current Senate reauthorization bill authorizes the AIP for a total of $8.1 billion for 2010 and 2011.

Although the future of the AIP is not guaranteed, Federal funding for public use airports has been provided since 1946. Therefore, for the purpose of this Master Plan Update, it is assumed that the AIP, or some form of it, will continue to be available and a viable capital funding option available to the CMAA during the 19-year planning period.

8.6.3 Obligations and Assurances

The Airway and Improvements Act requires the CMAA to provide certain assurances that it will comply with Federal law and regulation in using FAA AIP grant funds and in operating the Airport. The CMAA must comply with the sponsor assurances in the performance of grant agreements for Airport development, planning, and noise compatibility. The sponsor assurances are required to be submitted as part of the project application by the CMAA for requesting funds under the provisions of Title 49, USC, subtitle VII, as amended.

There are 39 sponsor’s assurances with which the CMAA must comply as a condition to accepting AIP grants from the FAA. Among these requirements is the assurance that the CMAA will make the Airport available as a public use airport on fair and reasonable terms without unjust discrimination (Assurance 22); permit no exclusive aeronautical rights for use of the Airport (Assurance 23); and maintain a fee and rental structure, consistent with Assurances 22 and 23, for facilities and services being provided that will make the Airport as financially self-sustaining as possible under the circumstances existing at the Airport (Assurance 24).

8.7 AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Grants administered by the FAA through the Airport improvement program (AIP) represent a critical capital funding source for the CMAA to implement the projects recommended in this Master Plan Update. Although the future status of the AIP is currently uncertain, for the purpose of this Master Plan Update, it is assumed that the AIP will continue to be authorized and appropriated at levels consistent with the FY 2010 AIP appropriation. Within the existing AIP authorization, there are two major sub-categories which are generally used for improvement programs: entitlement grant and discretionary grant programs. These sub-categories are discussed below.

8.7.1 Passenger Service Entitlement Grants

One of the most common types of Federal funding available for commercial service airports in the US is passenger entitlement grants funded through the AIP and administered by the FAA. Entitlement grants are essentially an allocation of certain AIP funds based upon an airport’s total number of enplaned passengers in a given year. Only airports defined by the FAA as “Primary Airports” (those having 10,000 or more enplanements) are eligible to receive AIP Entitlement Grants. Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is classified by the FAA as a Primary Airport. Pursuant to Vision 100, in any Federal fiscal year in which Congress appropriates funding for the AIP program at the $3.2 billion level or more, Primary Airports receive apportionments based on the following number of enplaned passengers:

 $15.60 for each of the first 50,000 enplanements  $10.40 for each of the next 50,000 enplanements  $5.20 for each of the next 400,000 enplanements

Financial Feasibility 8-14 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

 $1.30 for each of the next 500,000 enplanements  $1.00 for each enplanement in excess of 1 million passengers

For the purpose of determining passenger entitlements grants apportioned in 2010, the FAA uses the number of passengers enplaned at each airport in calendar year 2008. Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport enplaned 300,796 passengers in calendar year 2008, which includes airline enplanements, as well as air taxi, charter, and other unscheduled enplanement activity. Based on 300,796 enplaned passengers in calendar year 2008, the AIP passenger entitlement grant apportionment formula yields $2,344,139 for Federal Fiscal Year 2010. Total AIP passenger entitlements are projected to be $9,503,483 during the short-term development period (2009– 2012) based upon the passenger forecast in this report.

Actual final amounts of AIP passenger entitlement grants may be affected by the total amounts periodically authorized and appropriated by Congress for this program. Entitlement grants may be carried over from one year to the next, used to pay the principal component of the eligible debt service on bonds issued to finance eligible projects, and, among other provisions, future allocations may be earmarked for repayment of current expenditures, if the FAA concurs and issues a Letter of Intent (LOI).

8.7.2 Cargo Service Entitlement Grants

While originally designed to provide a source of reliable funding for commercial service airports that provide passenger service, changes to the AIP have also resulted in entitlement set asides for cargo service airports. Certain airports are designated by the FAA as cargo service airports. According to FAA Order 5100.38C, Airport Improvement Program Handbook, a cargo service airport is any airport that, in addition to any other air transportation services that may be available, are served by aircraft providing air transportation of only cargo with a total annual landed weight of more than 100 million pounds. Landed weight includes the weight of aircraft transporting only cargo intrastate, interstate, and in foreign air transportation. An airport may be both a commercial passenger service and cargo service airport.

Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport is not currently designated as a cargo service airport and therefore does not currently receive cargo service entitlement grants. It is assumed that the Airport will not receive cargo service entitlements during the 19-year planning period.

8.7.3 Discretionary Grants

Discretionary grants are based upon commitments to certain eligible development projects at the option of the FAA. Discretionary grants are available for use by most types of public use airports. Discretionary grant funding comprises two types of funds: set-aside funds and remaining funds. The set-aside funds are allocated for noise compatibility and military airport programs. The remaining discretionary grant funds are distributed to airports based on a priority system for projects that enhance safety, improve security, meet standards, and add capacity, in that order. The FAA has established the National Priority System (NPS) to assist in deciding how to allocate AIP discretionary grants according to these priorities.

In the past, the CMAA has been successful in competing for AIP discretionary grants, receiving approximately $20.7 million in such grants from 2005 through 2009. AIP discretionary grants will continue to be an important source of project funding for the recommended projects. However, as with AIP entitlement grants, AIP discretionary grants may be affected by the future reauthorization of the AIP. In such event that discretionary grants are not available for funding the Capital

Financial Feasibility 8-15 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Projects, such projects will be postponed until such time that discretionary grants or other available funding becomes available. Assumptions regarding the use of AIP entitlement and discretionary grants are described below.

AIP Eligibility

All AIP grants are subject to approval by the Secretary of Transportation and periodic appropriation by Congress. As a non-hub airport, certain project work elements may be eligible for AIP funding at the 95 percent level. The Airport Improvement Program Handbook sets forth project eligibility guidelines for AIP funding. Tables 8-12 and 8-13 present the anticipated AIP eligibility of each of the proposed Capital Projects. As depicted on Table 8-13, the total AIP eligibility of the recommended projects in the short-term planning period is estimated to be approximately $28.8 million, or 70.8 percent of the period’s total cost.

Due to the demand for AIP grant funds and the uncertainty regarding the future of the AIP, the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport may not be able to secure AIP funding at the maximum level for each recommended project. It may be reasonable to expect that the Airport will continue to receive approximately $2.3 million in annual entitlements through the short-term development period.

Table 8-13 presents the estimated AIP eligibility for the CMAA’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) not included in the Recommended Alternatives. As depicted on Table 8-14, it is estimated that approximately $9.5 million in AIP entitlements and $15.9 million in AIP discretionary grant funding will be used to fund the Capital Projects during the short-term development period. This funding level will provide approximately 63 percent of the funding for the Capital Projects included in the short-term development period. As previously discussed, in the event that discretionary grants are not available for funding the Capital Projects, such projects will be postponed until such time that discretionary grants or other available funding becomes available.

Funding Assumptions

The estimated funding plan for the Capital Projects included in the medium-term and long-term development period are set forth on Table 8-15 and Table 8-16. Based on the availability of AIP funds at that time and under the assumption that AIP funding will be applied at the 95 percent level for eligible projects, the medium- and long-term Capital Projects are estimated to be funded with approximately $30.7 million in AIP entitlements and $11.3 million in AIP discretionary funds. This represents approximately 21 percent of the total project cost ($203.3 million) of the Capital Projects proposed during these periods.

Financial Feasibility 8-16 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 8-12 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE AND COSTS Project % AIP Total AIP Number Project Description Project Cost Eligible Eligibility Short-Term Projects (2009 - 2012) I-1 Air Cargo/Airport Bus Park/Hangar Dev/Southern Dev EA $ 250,000 0% $ - I-2 West Side Development Environmental Assessment 75,000 0% - I-3 Taxiway H Design and Construction 4,280,657 95% 4,066,624 I-4 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Land Acquisition & Building Demo 1,565,000 95% 1,486,750 I-5 Temporary Surface Parking Area Design and Construction 2,686,000 0% - I-6 Passenger Security Checkpoint Expansion Phase 1 700,000 95% 665,000 I-7 West Development Area Site Improvements Design & Const 280,657 0% - I-8 West Development Area - Phase 1 Structures Design & Const 5,665,588 0% - I-9 Jubilee Drive Entrance Improvements Design and Construction 329,000 0% - I-10 Target Building Demolition 325,000 0% - Subtotal Short-Term Projects $ 16,156,902 $ 6,218,374 Medium-Term Projects (2013 - 2017) II-1 North GA Apron Expansion-CATEX $ 5,000 95% $ 4,750 II-2 Runway 02 and Taxiway A Extension Environmental Assessment 750,000 95% 712,500 II-3 Terminal Area Development Projects Environmental Assessment 125,000 0% - II-4 Shepherd Road Enhancements and Bridge Reconstruction EA 500,000 95% 475,000 II-5 Runway 02 and Taxiway A Extension Design and Construction 23,861,000 95% 22,667,950 II-6 North GA Apron Expansion Design and Construction 1,697,000 95% 1,612,150 II-7 Purchase and Demolition of Remaining Properties within RPZ 757,000 95% 719,150 II-8 Terminal Concourse Expansion Design and Construction 22,675,000 95% 21,541,250 II-9 Terminal Loop Road Widening Design and Construction 77,000 95% 73,150 II-10 Consolidated Rental Car QTA Design and Construction 3,308,000 0% - II-11 Passenger Security Screening Checkpoint Expansion - Phase 2 100,000 95% 95,000 II-12 West Development Area-Phase 2 Design and Construction 4,299,000 0% - II-13 Conventional Hangars 1- Site Development Design and Construction 1,107,000 0% - II-14 Land Acquisition-T-Hangars-Phase 1 1,176,000 0% - II-15 T-Hangars-Phase 1- Site Improvements Design and Construction 2,809,000 0% - II-16 T-Hangars-Phase 1- Structures Design and Construction 569,000 0% - II-17 Air Cargo Site Improvements Design and Construction 5,698,000 0% - II-18 Demolition of Existing TANG Facilities and Site Grading 543,000 0% - II-19 Maintenance Center Site Development Design and Construction 4,228,000 0% - II-20 Airport Business Park Land Acquisition - Phase 1 1,243,000 0% - II-21 Airport Business Parking Existing Structures Demo - Phase 1 70,000 0% - II-22 Airport Business Park Land Acquisition - Phase 2 1,617,000 0% - II-23 Airport Business Parking Existing Structures Demo - Phase 2 180,000 0% - II-24 Southern Greenway Design and Construction 247,000 0% - II-25 Shepherd Road Enhancements Design and Construction 342,000 95% 324,900 Subtotal Medium-Term Projects $ 77,983,000 $ 48,225,800

Table 8-12 continued on next page

Financial Feasibility 8-17 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 8-12 continued from previous page Project % AIP Total AIP Number Project Description Project Cost Eligible Eligibility Long-Term Projects (2018 - 2027) III-1 Northern Greenway Environmental Assessment $ 75,000 0% - III-2 Taxiway K Widening CATEX 420,000 95% $ 399,000 III-3 Parking Garage/Baggage Make-Up Design and Construction 51,955,000 0% - III-4 Baggage Claim Expansion Design and Construction 10,696,000 95% 10,161,200 III-5 West Development Area-Phase 3 Design and Construction 7,545,000 0% - III-6 Conventional Hangars 2- Site Development Design and Construction 1,120,000 0% - III-7 Conventional Hangars 3- Site Development Design and Construction 1,120,000 0% - III-8 T-Hangars-Phase 2 Design and Construction 3,378,000 0% - III-9 Air Cargo Facility Design and Construction 3,206,000 0% - III-10 Maintenance Center Structure Design and Construction 24,313,000 0% - III-11 Airport Business Park Land Acquisition - Phase 3 864,000 0% - III-12 Airport Business Parking Existing Structures Demo - Phase 3 214,000 0% - III-13 Airport Business Park Site Development Design and Construction 9,416,000 0% - III-14 Northern Greenway Design and Construction 457,000 0% - III-15 Shepherd Road Bridge Reconfiguration Design and Construction 8,413,000 95% 7,992,350 Subtotal Long-Term Projects $ 123,192,000 $ 18,552,550 TOTAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 217,331,902 $ 72,996,724

Table 8-13 ADDITIONAL CIP PROJECTS

Project % AIP Total AIP Number Project Description Short-Term Eligible Eligibility Short Term CIP Projects (2009 - 2012) CIP-1 T/Ws A, B, & C Relocation and Reconstruction $ 2,878,647 95% $ 2,734,715 CIP-2 Security Enhancements 1,934,484 95% 1,837,760 CIP-3 West Apron Construction 3,000,000 95% 2,850,000 CIP-4 Passenger Security Expansion - Gift Shop/Rest Relocation 500,000 95% 475,000 CIP-5 CT-80 Facility Modification Phase 2 730,775 0% - CIP-6 Terminal Ramp Rehab/N. Ramp - Design & Const 6,412,500 95% 6,091,875 CIP-7 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Additional Land Acquisition 8,435,000 95% 8,013,250 CIP-8 Runway 2 Extension Design 600,000 95% 570,000 Subtotal Short-Term CIP Projects $ 24,491,406 $ 22,572,600

Short-Term Master Plan Projects $ 16,156,902 $ 6,218,374

Total Short-Term Capital Projects $ 40,648,308 $ 28,790,974

Medium-Term Projects (2013 - 2017) CIP-6 Terminal Ramp Rehab/N. Ramp - Design & Const $ 2,137,500 95% $ 2,030,625 Subtotal Medium-Term CIP Projects $ 2,137,500 $ 2,030,625

Medium-Term Master Plan Projects $ 77,983,000 $ 48,225,800

Total Medium-Term Capital Projects $ 80,120,500 $ 50,256,425

Total Long-Term Capital Projects $ 123,192,000 $ 8,552,550

Total Capital Projects $ 243,960,808 $ 97,599,949 Source: CIP Projects - CMAA

Financial Feasibility 8-18 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

8.7.4 Economic Stimulus

On February 17, 2009 President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”) into law. The best estimate of the overall direct cost of the stimulus package is $789 billion. The Department of Transportation was provided $48.1 billion, of which approximately $1.1 billion was allocated to the AIP for “ready to go” airport projects. While the funding from the AIP is not subject to normal AIP authorization, the funding is to be administered under the requirements of AIP Discretionary funding. CMAA received a $3.0 million grant under this program during FY 2009 to construct the West Apron project at the Airport.

8.7.5 Facilities and Equipment Program

The FAA is funded by four primary appropriation accounts: AIP; Facilities and Equipment (F&E); Operations and Research; and Engineering and Development. The F&E Program is the principal means for modernizing and improving the air traffic control and airway facilities. Certain projects may be eligible for funding under the F&E Program or the Air Traffic Organization Account (ATO). However, for the purpose of this Financial Plan, it is assumed that funding under the F&E will be unavailable for the Capital Projects.

8.8 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

8.8.1 Finance and Grant Management

The State of Tennessee has been providing financial aid to its airports since 1930. In 1986, the Tennessee General Assembly adopted legislation that created the State Transportation Equity Fund. This fund allocates receipts from taxes collected from transportation fuels for distribution to airports, rail, and waterways based upon their contribution to the fund. For aviation, these monies are administered by the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TNDOT), with the advice and assistance of the Tennessee Aeronautics Commission. These funds are used for statewide grants to air carrier and general aviation airports in Tennessee and can cover up to 90 percent of the total costs of airport projects depending on the type of project.

The CMAA has been awarded $4.3 million grants from TNDOT to fund certain Capital Projects included in the short-term development period. These grants include $3.4 million for the design and construction of the West Development Area (PWEs I-7 and I-8), $270,000 for the demolition of the Target property (PWE I-10), and $658,000 for the CT-80 Facility Modification Project (CIP-5).

As depicted on Table 8-14, approximately $5.5 million in additional state grant funding will be needed to fund the recommended Capital Projects during the short-term development period. State grants in-hand together with anticipated state grants will provide approximately 24 percent of the funding for the projects included in the short-term development period.

Although the CMAA has been successful in its efforts to secure significant amounts of state grants, the TNDOT has not committed to provide the additional state grant funding included in the Funding Plan. According to the TNDOT Finance Division, aviation fuel tax collections used to support the Tennessee Equity Fund have decreased by approximately two-thirds in the first quarter of FY 2010 compared to the same quarter in FY 2009. These declines are likely the result of the slowing of the economies of the state and the United States. As a result of the lower aviation fuel tax collections, TNDOT will defer all airport project applications received after November 12, 2009. This deferral does not affect the 2.5 percent “local” match of projects funded by the AIP. If TNDOT

Financial Feasibility 8-19 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

funding is not restored to historical levels, the CMAA may be required to postpone certain Capital Projects until such time that funding becomes available.

The estimated Financial Plan for the projects included in the medium-term and long-term development period are set forth on Table 8-15 and Table 8-16, respectively. Based on the uncertainty of these funds during the medium- and long-term development periods, it is assumed that the CMAA would receive an average of $1.2 million per year, compared to recent grant awards of over $2.0 million per year. Given the availability of state funds during the medium- and long- term and under the assumption that state funding will be applied at the 90 percent level for eligible projects and 2.5 percent for all AIP funded projects, the medium- and long-term projects are estimated to be funded with approximately $18 million in state funds, which represents 8.9 percent of the total project cost of the Capital Projects proposed during these periods.

8.9 THIRD PARTY/TENANT FINANCING

Funding by third parties or tenants is a viable source for certain of the proposed projects. This source of funding is facility related and directly reduces the amount that must be funded by the CMAA. Third party/tenant funding is a particularly important arrangement to pay the cost of proprietary facilities that may be ineligible for FAA participation such as hangars, air cargo facilities, and non-aeronautical development ( such as the Airport Business Park).

Third party/tenant funding may take many forms depending upon the particular facility to be constructed. The third party or tenant may either pay for facilities directly or pledge to pay debt service on municipal or special facility bonds issued by the sponsor to construct the proposed facilities. One option in this regard would be to request proposals for development of the West Development Area, hangar facilities, Airport Business Park, public parking garage, air cargo development, and/or the aircraft maintenance center which are recommended in the medium-term and long-term of this Master Plan Update to be constructed when justified by demand. A proposal could be structured to allow non-tenant investors the opportunity to build and lease facilities which would otherwise be funded by the tenant or the owner. This would require a minimal initial capital investment from the CMAA and other local sources and, if properly arranged, could result in the development of a first class facility.

It should be noted that third party or tenant facilities would likely be financed by the users. Alternatively, financing would be through the use of industrial development bonds or special facility bonds (subsequently described in a later section of this chapter). Such types of financing would likely require a long-term lease (up to 30 years) to ensure the third party or tenant’s recovery of its investment in the facility. The CMAA would collect land rental payments and benefit from the residual value of the facility reverting to the CMAA upon expiration of the lease.

The funding plan assumes that no third party/tenant funding will be required for the Capital Projects recommended in the short-term planning period. However, the CMAA may consider inviting third party/tenant participation to fund the West Development Area (PWE I-8) in exchange for a long- term facility lease or management contract. The CMAA may also consider requesting proposals from its food/beverage and gift shop concessionaires regarding capital investment needed to relocate the gift shop and develop a new food and beverage location beyond the security checkpoint (CIP-4).

The CMAA may manage the quality and services provided in improvements funded by third party/tenants through the Minimum Standards, which establish the minimum facility and service requirements for private businesses wishing to provide commercial aeronautical services at the

Financial Feasibility 8-20 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Airport, as well as to insure that those who provide commodities and services are not exposed to unfair or irresponsible competition.

The Financial Plan assumes that third party/tenant financing will be used to fund certain hangar development in the medium-term and design and construction of an air cargo facility, Airport Business Park and an aircraft maintenance center in the long-term development period. As depicted on Table 8-15 and Table 8-16, these improvements will collectively require an estimated investment of approximately $44.3 million.

8.10 TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act passed by the US Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001. The TSA is responsible for security in all modes of transportation in the United States. The TSA provides for the security screening of passengers and baggage at the Airport.

The TSA collects certain security fees to pay for the cost of providing for the capital, operating, and maintenance expenses associated with providing aviation security for the national aviation transportation system. These fees include the September 11 Security Fee and the Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee.

The Capital Projects recommended in the long-term development period include design and construction of the Parking Garage / Baggage Make-up project (III-3). As depicted on Table 8-16, the total cost of this project is estimated to be $52.0 million. This project includes the installation of four in-line explosive detection systems (EDS) in connection with the proposed baggage make-up structure. The cost of the four EDS machines is estimated to be approximately $4.0 million. As presented on Table 8-16, this amount is assumed to be funded by the TSA.

8.11 NON-TRADITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES

Other potential non-traditional Federal, state and regional funding sources the CMAA might consider include agencies dealing with surface transportation, soil conservation, forestry, multi- modal economic development, or waste management. Because of the uncertain nature of these sources of funding, the Funding Plan assumes that the CMAA will not receive any such funds, although the CMAA could thoroughly examine these potential sources to fund the recommended projects should the opportunity arise.

Table 8-14 presents the local funding plan for the short-term development period projects. As depicted, the CMAA’s local funding requirement for the short-term development period is estimated to be $2.4 million.

A summary of the Funding Plan for the proposed projects recommended in the medium-term is provided on Table 8-15 and the long-term projects funding plan is provided on Table 8-16. The CMAA’s local funding requirement for these projects is estimated to be $92.7 million.

Financial Feasibility 8-21 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

This Page Left Blank Intentionally

Financial Feasibility 8-22 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 8-14 SHORT-TERM CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDING PLAN AIP State Project Total Stimulus/ Third Party/ Number Project Cost Entitlement Discretionary AIP Other Grants In-Hand Anticipated Tenant Local 2009 Projects: I-2 West Side Development Environmental Assessment $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 67,500 $ - $ 7,500 I-3 Taxiway H Design (2009 - 35%) 98,230 93,318 - 93,318 - - 2,456 - 2,456 I-5 Temporary Surface Parking Area Design (Phase 1) 32,500 - - - - - 29,250 - 3,250 I-7 West Development Area Site Improvements Design & Const 280,657 - - - - 252,591 - - 28,066 CIP-1 T/Ws A, B, & C Relocation and Reconstruction 2,878,647 763,000 1,971,715 2,734,715 - - 71,966 - 71,966 CIP-2a Security Enhancements (2009) 1,408,168 1,337,760 - 1,337,760 - - 35,204 - 35,204 CIP-3 West Apron Construction 3,000,000 - - - 3,000,000 - - - - Total 2009 Projects $ 7,773,202 $ 2,194,078 $ 1,971,715 $ 4,165,793 $ 3,000,000 $ 252,591 $ 206,376 $ - $ 148,442 2010 Projects: I-3 Taxiway H Design (2010 - 65%) & Construction $ 4,182,427 $ - $ 3,973,306 $ 3,973,306 $ - $ - $ 104,561 $ - $ 104,561 I-5 Temporary Surface Parking Area Design (Phase 2) 194,500 ------194,500 I-6 Passenger Security Checkpoint Expansion Phase 1 700,000 665,000 - 665,000 - - 17,500 - 17,500 I-8 West Development Area - Phase 1 Structures Design & Const 3,107,000 - - - - 2,796,300 - - 310,700 I-10 Target Building Demolition 325,000 - - - - 270,000 - - 55,000 CIP-2b Security Enhancements (2010) 526,316 - 500,000 500,000 - - 13,158 - 13,158 CIP-4 Passenger Security Checkpoint Exp. - Gift Shop Relo/Restaurant 500,000 475,000 - 475,000 - - 12,500 - 12,500 CIP-5 CT-80 Facility Modification Phase 2 730,775 - - - - 657,698 - - 73,078

CIP-6a Terminal Ramp Rehab/N. Ramp - Design & Const 2,137,500 2,030,625 - 2,030,625 - - 53,438 - 53,438 Total 2010 Projects $ 12,403,518 $ 3,170,625 $ 4,473,306 $ 7,643,931 $ - $ 3,723,998 $ 201,156 $ - $ 834,434 2011 Projects: I-4 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Land Acq. & Building Demo $ 1,565,000 $ - $ 1,486,750 $ 1,486,750 $ - $ - $ 39,125 $ - $ 39,125 I-8 West Development Area - Phase 1 Structures Design & Const 2,558,588 - - - - 351,109 1,951,621 - 255,859 I-9 Jubilee Drive Entrance Improvements Design and Const 329,000 - - - - - 296,100 - 32,900 CIP-6b Terminal Ramp Rehab/N. Ramp - Design & Const 2,137,500 2,030,625 - 2,030,625 - - 53,438 - 53,438 CIP-7 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Additional Land Acquisition 8,435,000 - 8,013,250 8,013,250 - - 210,875 - 210,875 Total 2011 Projects $ 15,025,088 $ 2,030,625 $ 9,500,000 $ 11,530,625 $ - $ 351,109 $ 2,551,158 $ - $ 592,196 2012 Projects: I-1 Air Cargo/Airport Bus Park/Hangar Dev/Southern Dev EA $ 250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 225,000 $ - $ 25,000 I-5 Temporary Surface Parking Area Construction 2,459,000 - - - - - 2,213,100 - 245,900 CIP-6c Terminal Ramp Rehab/N. Ramp - Design & Const 2,137,500 2,030,625 - 2,030,625 - - 53,438 - 53,438 CIP-8 Runway 2 Extension Design 600,000 77,530 - 77,530 - - 15,000 - 507,470 Total 2012 Projects $ 5,446,500 $ 2,108,155 $ - $ 2,108,155 $ - $ - $ 2,506,538 $ - $ 831,808

Total Short-Term Projects $ 40,648,308 $ 9,503,483 $ 15,945,020 $ 25,448,504 $ 3,000,000 $ 4,327,698 $ 5,465,228 $ - $ 2,406,879

Financial Feasibility 8-23 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 8-15 MEDIUM-TERM CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDING PLAN

Project AIP Eligibility AIP Third Party/ Number Project Description Project Cost % Amount Entitlements Discretionary Total AIP State Tenant Local Medium-Term Projects (2013 - 2017) II-1 North GA Apron Expansion-CATEX $ 5,000 95% $ 4,750 $ 4,750 $ - $ 4,750 $ 125 $ - $ 125 II-2 Runway 02 and Taxiway A Extension Environmental Assessment 750,000 95% 712,500 - - - 675,000 - 75,000 II-3 Terminal Area Development Projects Environmental Assessment 125,000 0% ------125,000 II-4 Shepherd Road Enhancements and Bridge Reconstruction EA 500,000 95% 475,000 475,000 - 475,000 12,500 - 12,500 II-5 Runway 02 and Taxiway A Extension Design and Construction 23,861,000 95% 2,667,950 - 11,333,975 11,333,975 1,000,000 - 11,527,025 II-6 North GA Apron Expansion Design and Construction 1,697,000 95% 1,612,150 1,612,150 - 1,612,150 42,425 - 42,425 II-7 Purchase and Demolition of Remaining Properties within RPZ 757,000 95% 719,150 719,150 - 719,150 18,925 - 18,925 II-8 Terminal Concourse Expansion Design and Construction 22,675,000 95% 21,541,250 6,826,245 - 6,826,245 1,000,000 - 14,848,755 II-9 Terminal Loop Road Widening Design and Construction 77,000 95% 73,150 73,150 - 73,150 1,925 - 1,925 II-10 Consolidated Rental Car QTA Design and Construction 3,308,000 0% ------3,308,000 II-11 Passenger Security Screening Checkpoint Expansion - Phase 2 100,000 95% 95,000 95,000 - 95,000 2,500 - 2,500 II-12 West Development Area-Phase 2 Design and Construction 4,299,000 0% - - - - 2,005,584 - 2,293,416 II-13 Conventional Hangars 1- Site Development Design and Construction 1,107,000 0% - - - - - 1,107,000 - II-14 Land Acquisition-T-Hangars-Phase 1 1,176,000 0% ------1,176,000 II-15 T-Hangars-Phase 1- Site Improvements Design and Construction 2,809,000 0% ------2,809,000 II-16 T-Hangars-Phase 1- Structures Design and Construction 569,000 0% - - - - - 569,000 - II-17 Air Cargo Site Improvements Design and Construction 5,698,000 0% - - - - - 5,698,000 - II-18 Demolition of Existing TANG Facilities and Site Grading 543,000 0% ------543,000 II-19 Maintenance Center Site Development Design and Construction 4,228,000 0% ------4,228,000 II-20 Airport Business Park Land Acquisition - Phase 1 1,243,000 0% - - - - 1,118,700 - 124,300 II-21 Airport Business Parking Existing Structures Demo - Phase 1 70,000 0% - - - - 63,000 - 7,000 II-22 Airport Business Park Land Acquisition - Phase 2 1,617,000 0% ------1,617,000 II-23 Airport Business Parking Existing Structures Demo - Phase 2 180,000 0% ------180,000 II-24 Southern Greenway Design and Construction 247,000 0% ------247,000 II-25 Shepherd Road Enhancements Design and Construction 342,000 95% 324,900 324,900 - 324,900 8,550 - 8,550 Total Medium Term Projects 77,983,000 48,225,800 10,130,345 11,333,975 21,464,320 5,949,234 7,374,000 43,195,446

Additional Medium-Term CIP Project(s) CIP-6c Terminal Ramp Rehab/N. Ramp - Design & Const $ 2,137,500 95% $ 2,030,625 $ 2,030,625 $ - $ 2,030,625 $ 50,766 $ - $ 56,109

Total Medium-Term Capital Projects $ 80,120,500 $ 50,256,425 $ 12,160,970 $ 11,333,975 $ 23,494,945 $ 6,000,000 $ 7,374,000 $ 43,251,555

Financial Feasibility 8-24 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 8-16 LONG-TERM CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDING PLAN AIP Project Total Third Party/ Number Project Description Project Cost Entitlements Discretionary AIP State Tenant TSA Local Long-Term Projects (2018 - 2027) III-1 Northern Greenway Environmental Assessment $ 75,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 67,500 $ - $ - $ 7,500 III-2 Taxiway K Widening CATEX 420,000 399,000 - 399,000 10,500 - - 10,500 III-3 Parking Garage/Baggage Make-Up Design and Construction 51,955,000 - - - - - 6,255,974 45,699,026 III-4 Baggage Claim Expansion Design and Construction 10,696,000 10,161,200 - 10,161,200 267,400 - - 267,400 III-5 West Development Area-Phase 3 Design and Construction 7,545,000 - - - 6,790,500 - - 754,500 III-6 Conventional Hangars 2- Site Development Design and Construction 1,120,000 - - - 1,008,000 - - 112,000 III-7 Conventional Hangars 3- Site Development Design and Construction 1,120,000 - - - 1,008,000 - - 112,000 III-8 T-Hangars-Phase 2 Design and Construction 3,378,000 - - - 1,667,575 - - 1,710,425 III-9 Air Cargo Facility Design and Construction 3,206,000 - - - - 3,206,000 - - III-10 Maintenance Center Structure Design and Construction 24,313,000 - - - - 24,313,000 - - III-11 Airport Business Park Land Acquisition - Phase 3 864,000 - - - 777,600 - - 86,400 III-12 Airport Business Parking Existing Structures Demo - Phase 3 214,000 - - - 192,600 - - 21,400 III-13 Airport Business Park Site Development Design and Construction 9,416,000 - - - - 9,416,000 - - III-14 Northern Greenway Design and Construction 457,000 ------457,000 III-15 Shepherd Road Bridge Reconfiguration Design and Construction 8,413,000 7,992,350 - 7,992,350 210,325 - - 210,325 $ Total Long-Term Projects $ 123,192,000 $ 18,552,550 $ - $ 18,552,550 12,000,000 $ 36,935,000 $ 6,255,974 $ 49,448,476

$ Total Medium and Long-Term Capital Projects $ 203,312,500 $ 30,713,520 $ 11,333,975 $ 42,047,495 18,000,000 $ 44,309,000 $ 49,507,529 $ 92,700,031

Financial Feasibility 8-25 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update This Page Left Blank Intentionally

Financial Feasibility 8-26 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

8.12 LOCAL FUNDING REQUIREMENT – SHORT-TERM CAPITAL PROJECTS

CMAA will be required to provide for the remaining funding requirement after the application of all AIP grants, state grants, and tenant/third party financing (if any) to complete the proposed improvements. Several local funding sources have been identified and are hereinafter described in the short-term local funding plan. In the case of financially self-sufficient airports with positive cash flows and accumulated cash reserves, a portion of the local share may be funded by such cash flows and reserves.

The short-term local funding plan includes two primary mechanisms the CMAA may utilize to provide for the local share required to complete the Capital Projects in the short-term planning period: Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) and Airport cash. In addition to these funding sources, descriptions of other alternative funding sources including Contract Facility Charges (CFCs) and the issuance of municipal bonds (or other types of borrowing) are provided for projects included for the medium-term and long-term planning periods.

8.13 FAA APPROVED PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES

Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) are available to fund certain qualified capital development projects at commercial passenger service airports. The Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (ASECEA) authorized the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to grant public agencies that control commercial service airports enplaning more than 2,500 annual passengers the authority to impose a PFC for each passenger boarding an aircraft (enplanement) at a given airport. The purpose of the PFC program is to preserve or enhance safety, security, capacity, competition, and mitigate the impact of aircraft noise. The ASECEA provides that PFC revenues may only be used for projects approved by the FAA including: payment of all or part of allowable project costs; for an airport’s AIP matching funds; to augment AIP funded projects; and for payment of debt service or financing costs associated with eligible airport development bonds.

Under existing authorization by Congress, airport sponsors may impose a PFC at a level of up to $4.50 per enplaned passenger. These charges are collected by the air carriers when tickets are sold and are later remitted to the airport, less a handling fee of $0.11 per PFC collected. In FY 2009, the CMAA collected approximately $1.3 million in PFCs, based on 292,086 revenue passenger enplanements10 and a PFC level of $4.50.

CMAA has previously received approval on four PFC applications to impose and use a PFC at the Airport. Following is a summary of the CMAA’s existing PFC collection and use authority.

PFC Application Number Approved for Collection Approved for Use PFC Application No. 1 $ 9,235,431 $ 9,235,431 PFC Application No. 2 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 PFC Application No. 3 $ 5,752,115 $ 5,752,115 PFC Application No. 4 $ 2,413,001 $ 2,413,001 Total PFC Authority $17,550,547 $17,550,547

The CMAA is authorized to collect a PFC through November 1, 2012 based upon passenger enplanement, PFC collection levels and PFC-eligible project costs. However, given the current

10 Revenue passenger enplanements are those enplanements that pay for their tickets and exclude passengers using “zero fare” tickets including employee travel and frequent flyer tickets. Revenue passenger enplanements are estimated to be approximately 93 percent of total passenger enplanements.

Financial Feasibility 8-27 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

level of enplaned passengers and PFC collections, the CMAA will likely satisfy its collection authority in advance of the November 1, 2012 charge expiration date. As depicted on Table 8-17, the Financial Plan assumes that the Airport will apply for and receive approval to use nearly $1.4 million in PFC revenues to provide funding for eligible Capital Projects included in the short-term development period.

As previously discussed, Congress has been working on a multi-year FAA reauthorization bill since the expiration of Vision 100. In addition to the reauthorization of the AIP, the current House of Representatives reauthorization bill would increase the maximum PFC level from $4.50 to $7.00 per revenue passenger enplanement. The current Senate reauthorization bill proposes no change to the $4.50 level. For the purpose of this Master Plan Update, it is assumed that the PFC will continue to be available at the $4.50 level and any increase in the level would provide the CMAA with an additional source of AIP/PFC eligible Capital Project funding during the 19-year planning period.

8.14 CONTRACT (CUSTOMER) FACILITY CHARGES

Rental car Contract Facility Charges (CFCs) are another type of restricted airport revenue similar to the PFC. The primary distinction between a CFC and a PFC is that a PFC must be approved by the FAA. A CFC is a charge paid by rental car customers per the number of contract days that a vehicle has been rented. The CFC can be negotiated and implemented contractually between the airport and the rental car companies. Generally, CFC revenue is limited to funding rental car facilities at the airport; rental car related capital expense (debt service); and rental car related operating and maintenance expenses.

Given that the rental car specific improvements recommended in the Master Plan Update are not projected until the medium- and long-term development period, CFCs are not included in the short- term local funding plan. However, the CMAA should consider implementing a CFC during the short-term planning period if it believes that rental car related capital development would occur within the next five years. As will be discussed in the Local Funding Requirement – Medium-Term and Long-Term Capital Projects section, CFCs are projected to be needed as a funding source for rental car facility development projected to begin in the medium-term development period.

Based on a current estimate of 150,000 contract days and a $3.50 CFC level, the CMAA would generate approximately $525,000 in CFC revenues each year. If additional funds are needed, higher fee levels could be used.

8.15 CMAA’S REMAINING FUNDING REQUIREMENT

As depicted on Table 8-17, the CMAA will be required to provide approximately $1.0 million in Airport cash to complete the funding for the short-term Capital Projects. This will be accomplished through a combination of Airport cash flows and unrestricted cash reserves.

Financial Feasibility 8-28 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 8-17 SHORT-TERM CAPITAL PROJECTS LOCAL FUNDING PLAN

Local Funding Project Local Funding Airport Number Requirement PFC Cash 2009 Projects: I-2 West Side Development Environmental Assessment $ 7,500 $ - $ 7,500 I-3 Taxiway H Design (2009 - 35%) 2,456 2,456 - I-5 Temporary Surface Parking Area Design (Phase 1) 3,250 - 3,250 I-7 West Development Area Site Improvements Design & Const 28,066 - 28,066 CIP-1 T/Ws A, B, & C Relocation and Reconstruction 71,966 71,966 - CIP-2a Security Enhancements (2009) 35,204 35,204 - CIP-3 West Apron Construction - - - Total 2009 Projects $ 148,442 $ 109,626 $ 38,816 2010 Projects: I-3 Taxiway H Design (2010 - 65%) & Construction $ 104,561 $ 104,561 $ - I-5 Temporary Surface Parking Area Design (Phase 2) 194,500 - 194,500 I-6 Passenger Security Checkpoint Expansion Phase 1 17,500 17,500 - I-8 West Development Area - Phase 1 Structures Design & Const 310,700 - 310,700 I-10 Target Building Demolition 55,000 - 55,000 CIP-2b Security Enhancements (2010) 13,158 13,158 - CIP-4 Passenger Security Exp - Gift Shop Relo/Restaurant 12,500 12,500 - CIP-5 CT-80 Facility Modification Phase 2 73,078 - 73,078 CIP-6a Terminal Ramp Rehab/N. Ramp - Design & Const 53,438 53,438 - Total 2010 Projects $ 834,434 $ 201,156 $ 633,278 2011 Projects: I-4 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Land Acq & Building Demo 39,125 $ - $ 39,125 I-8 West Development Area - Phase 1 Structures Design & Const 255,859 255,859 - I-9 Jubilee Drive Entrance Improvements Design and Const 32,900 - 32,900 CIP-6b Terminal Ramp Rehab/N. Ramp - Design & Const 53,438 53,438 - CIP-7 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - Additional Land Acquisition 210,875 210,875 - Total 2011 Projects $ 592,196 $ 520,171 $ 72,025 2012 Projects: I-1 Air Cargo/Airport Bus Park/Hangar Dev/Southern Dev EA 25,000 $ - $ 25,000 I-5 Temporary Surface Parking Area Construction 245,900 - 245,900 CIP-6c Terminal Ramp Rehab/N. Ramp - Design & Const 53,438 53,438 - CIP-8 Runway 2 Extension Design 507,470 507,470 - Total 2012 Projects $ 831,808 $ 560,908 $ 270,900

Total Short-Term Projects $ 2,406,879 $ 1,391,861 $ 1,015,018

Financial Feasibility 8-29 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

8.15.1 Airport Cash Flow and Reserves

Airport cash flow refers to the collection of revenues earned or received, and payment of expenses incurred during a fiscal year. The ability of the Airport to use positive cash flows and unrestricted reserves as a source of funding depends on its ability to generate Airport revenues in excess of the cost of operating, maintaining and improving the Airport.

Surplus annual cash flows are deposited by the CMAA into one of several unrestricted reserve accounts. The CMAA can accumulate any such annual surpluses and any investment interest in the reserve accounts and use a portion of the available balances to pay a part of the development costs for the Capital Projects.

As of the end of FY 2009, the CMAA had approximately $5.05 as of December 31, 2009. A summary of CMAA’s unrestricted cash is presented on Table 8-18.

Table 8-18 UNRESTRICTED CASH RESERVES

Account Numbers Account Name 12/31/2009 New Service Agreement Fund $ 2,000000 101020 Operating & Maintenance Reserve 2,218,375 101021 Renewal & Replacement 770,824 Totals $ 4,989,199

Because not all of the available reserves can be used for Capital Projects, the ability of the CMAA to use cash flows and reserves will be described in more detail in the Historical Financial Information and Pro Forma Cash Flow sections.

8.16 LOCAL FUNDING REQUIREMENT: MEDIUM-TERM AND LONG-TERM CAPITAL PROJECTS

As with the local funding of the Capital Projects in the short-term, the CMAA will need to provide funding for any portion of a project that is not paid with the application of federal grants, state grants and tenant/third party financing to complete the proposed Capital Projects in the medium- term and long-term. The local funding plan for the medium-term and long-term Capital Projects is presented on Table 8-19 and Table 8-20.

Financial Feasibility 8-30 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 8-19 MEDIUM-TERM CAPITAL PROJECTS LOCAL FUNDING PLAN

Local Funding Bond Funding Local Non Project Funding PFC Airport PFC CFC PFC/CFC Total Number Project Description Requirement PAYGO Cash Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Medium-Term Projects (2013 - 2017) II-1 North GA Apron Expansion-CATEX $ 125 $ 125 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - II-2 Runway 02 and Taxiway A Extension Environmental Assessment 75,000 75,000 - - - - - II-3 Terminal Area Development Projects Environmental Assessment 125,000 125,000 - - - - - II-4 Shepherd Road Enhancements and Bridge Reconstruction EA 12,500 12,500 - - - - - II-5 Runway 02 and Taxiway A Extension Design and Construction 11,527,025 - - 11,527,025 - - 11,527,025 II-6 North GA Apron Expansion Design and Construction 42,425 42,425 - - - - - II-7 Purchase and Demolition of Remaining Properties within RPZ 18,925 18,925 - - - - - II-8 Terminal Concourse Expansion Design and Construction 14,848,755 - - 14,848,755 - - 14,848,755 II-9 Terminal Loop Road Widening Design and Construction 1,925 1,925 - - - - - II-10 Consolidated Rental Car QTA Design and Construction 3,308,000 - - - 3,308,000 - 3,308,000 II-11 Passenger Security Screening Checkpoint Expansion - Phase 2 2,500 2,500 - - - - - II-12 West Development Area-Phase 2 Design and Construction 2,293,416 - 2,293,416 - - - - II-13 Conventional Hangars 1- Site Development Design and Construction ------II-14 Land Acquisition-T-Hangars-Phase 1 1,176,000 - 1,176,000 - - - - II-15 T-Hangars-Phase 1- Site Improvements Design and Construction 2,809,000 - 2,809,000 - - - - II-16 T-Hangars-Phase 1- Structures Design and Construction ------II-17 Air Cargo Site Improvements Design and Construction ------II-18 Demolition of Existing TANG Facilities and Site Grading 543,000 - 543,000 - - - - II-19 Maintenance Center Site Development Design and Construction 4,228,000 - - - - 4,228,000 4,228,000 II-20 Airport Business Park Land Acquisition - Phase 1 124,300 - 124,300 - - - - II-21 Airport Business Parking Existing Structures Demo - Phase 1 7,000 - 7,000 - - - - II-20 Airport Business Park Land Acquisition - Phase 2 1,617,000 - 1,617,000 - - - - II-21 Airport Business Parking Existing Structures Demo - Phase 2 180,000 - 180,000 - - - - II-22 Southern Greenway Design and Construction 247,000 - 247,000 - - - - II-23 Shepherd Road Enhancements Design and Construction 8,550 8,550 - - - - - Total Medium-Term Projects $ 43,195,446 $286,950 $8,996,716 $26,375,780 $3,308,000 $4,228,000 $33,911,780 Additional Medium-Term CIP Project(s) CIP-6c Terminal Ramp Rehab/N. Ramp - Design & Const $ 56,109 $ 56,109 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Total Medium-Term Projects $ 43,251,555 $343,059 $8,996,716 $26,375,780 $3,308,000 $4,228,000 $33,911,780

Financial Feasibility 8-31 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update Table 8-20 LONG-TERM CAPITAL PROJECTS LOCAL FUNDING PLAN

Local Funding Bond Funding Local Non Project Funding PFC Airport PFC CFC PFC/CFC Total Number Project Description Requirement PAYGO Cash Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Long-Term Projects (2018 - 2027) III-1 Northern Greenway Environmental Assessment $ 7,500 $ 7,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - III-2 Taxiway K Widening CATEX 10,500 10,500 - - - - - III-3 Parking Garage/Baggage Make-Up Design and Construction 45,699,026 6,357,633 - - 19,603,445 19,737,948 39,341,393 III-4 Baggage Claim Expansion Design and Construction 267,400 267,400 - - - - - III-5 West Development Area-Phase 3 Design and Construction 754,500 - 754,500 - - - - Conventional Hangars 2- Site Development Design and III-6 Construction 112,000 - 112,000 - - - - Conventional Hangars 3- Site Development Design and III-7 Construction 112,000 - 112,000 - - - - III-8 T-Hangars-Phase 2 Design and Construction 1,710,425 - 1,710,425 - - - - III-9 Air Cargo Facility Design and Construction ------III-10 Maintenance Center Structure Design and Construction ------III-11 Airport Business Park Land Acquisition - Phase 3 86,400 - 86,400 - - - - III-12 Airport Business Parking Existing Structures Demo - Phase 3 21,400 - 21,400 - - - - III-13 Airport Business Park Site Development Design and Construction ------III-14 Northern Greenway Design and Construction 457,000 - 457,000 - - - - III-15 Shepherd Road Bridge Reconfiguration Design and Construction 210,325 210,325 - - - - - Total Long-Term Projects $ 49,448,476 $ 6,853,358 $ 3,253,725 $ - $19,603,445 $19,737,948 $39,341,393

Total Medium and Long-Term Capital Projects $ 92,700,031 $ 7,196,417 $ 12,250,441 $ 26,375,780 $ 2,911,445 $23,965,948 $73,253,173

Financial Feasibility 8-32 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

The medium-term and long-term Capital Projects funding plan assumes the use of PFCs, CFCs, funds from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Airport bonds to provide funding for the local requirement. As depicted on Table 8-19, the estimated local funding requirement for the medium-term Capital Projects is $43.3 million, of which $343,000 will be funded with PFCs on a “pay-as-you-go” basis, $9.0 million in Airport cash and $33.9 million to be funded from proceeds of general obligation bonds, Airport revenue bonds, or other type of public debt.

As shown on Table 8-20, the estimated local funding requirement for the long-term Capital Projects is $55.7 million, of which $6.9 million will be funded with PFCs on a “pay-as-you-go” basis, $6.3 million will be funded by the TSA, $3.2 million in Airport cash and $39.3 million to be funded from proceeds of general obligation bonds, Airport revenue bonds, or other type of public debt as hereinafter described.

8.17 ISSUANCE OF PUBLIC (MUNICIPAL) DEBT

Proceeds from the issuance of municipal bonds are a common source of funding for airport sponsors in the United States. To obtain these funds, airports seek access to the capital markets on reasonable terms for short-, intermediate- and long-term financing needs. The most commonly used financing instruments to fund major airport capital development programs are tax-exempt or tax-advantaged municipal debt, including General Obligation Bonds, General Airport Revenue Bonds, Industrial Development Bonds, and Special Facility Bonds. The following is a brief summary of these primary types of municipal funding instruments. Please note that not all of these types of instruments may be suitable given CMAA’s existing financial position, but may be viable funding alternatives in the future.

8.17.1 General Obligation Bonds

General Obligation Bonds (GO Bonds) are among the first municipal financing instruments used for airport development. GO Bonds are a debt of the issuing agency and are supported by its taxing power. Since these bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing agency, they often require voter approval. As a rule, GO Bonds generally have the lowest interest rates when compared with other municipal financing instruments and typically do not require the establishment of backup reserve funds or coverage to enhance their creditworthiness. GO Bonds used for airport financing increases the issuing agency’s outstanding debt, and thus reduces the amount of credit available to finance other community needs.

8.17.2 General Airport Revenue Bonds

The first General Airport Revenue Bonds (GARBs) used to support airport development were issued in the late 1950’s. These bonds were supported by revenues from the commercial airlines operating at an airport that entered into long-term agreements in which they agreed to pay fees and charges necessary to pay debt service and the operating and maintenance (O&M) expenses remaining after deducting revenue from non-airline sources. These agreements also restricted the airport sponsor’s ability to undertake capital developments without airline approval and thus, except in unusual circumstances, long-term, residual agreements with the commercial airlines that guarantee a specific level of fees and charges are no longer required to support GARBs. The use of GARBs for airport development purposes has created a market demand for tax-favored investments, and today GARBs are the primary instrument used to finance airport development. Unlike GO Bonds, GARBs have no tax support, but are secured by a pledge of either all revenues of the airport (gross revenue pledge) or, more commonly, net airport revenues remaining after the

Financial Feasibility 8-33 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

payment of O&M expenses (net pledge). The creditworthiness of the bond issuer will determine the interest rate and the credit enhancements required to sell the GARBs.

8.17.3 Industrial Development Bonds/Economic Development Bonds and Special Facility Bonds

Industrial Development Bonds/Economic Development Bonds (IDBs) are used by governmental entities for projects eligible under the Internal Revenue Code in conjunction with other incentives such as local and state tax abatement and/or tax credits to create a package that will attract businesses to these zones and provide employment opportunities for its residents. IDBs are issued by a governmental entity which then loans the proceeds to a private company to provide financing methods for economic development projects. The IDBs are secured by the payment on a promissory note by the private company. As the issuer, the governmental entity acts as a conduit for the private company and has no liability.

Special Facility Bonds (SFBs) are issued by airport sponsors to encourage specific developments. Their use originated in the 1960's as a means to finance needed facilities for airlines upon reasonable terms and conditions. The facilities constructed with the proceeds are leased by the issuer to the airline for a period that coincides with the term of the SFBs. The SFBs are not a debt of the issuer, but are supported solely by the revenues from the project they were issued to construct, and the sole responsibility of the issuer is to use its best efforts to generate rental revenue from the project.

8.17.4 Short-Term Financing Instruments

In certain instances, the issuance of municipal bonds is not the most cost-effective way to provide for the local funding requirement at an airport. There are several different short-term financing instruments available to an airport sponsor to provide short-term capital project funding. Airport sponsors use short-term financing instruments to bridge the gap between when expenses occur and when revenues are available. Short-term instruments often have maturities of less than one year.

The most commonly used short-term financing instruments used to provide bridge funding include Revenue Anticipation Notes, Bond Anticipation Notes, General Obligation Notes, and Commercial Paper. Following is a brief summary of the types of short-term municipal funding instruments.

Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANs)

RANs are issued by an airport sponsor or municipality in anticipation of future revenues generated by the improvement being financed. RANs may be used to provide short-term funding for projects that are entirely self-sufficient, the revenues of which would reimburse the airport sponsor for providing the capital needed to fund the improvement.

Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs)

BANs are issued by airport sponsors to provide for bridge or interim financing in anticipation of a future long-term bond issuance. Therefore, BANs are secured by a municipality or airport sponsor’s ability to issue long-term municipal bonds.

Financial Feasibility 8-34 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

General Obligation Notes

Similar to GO Bonds, General Obligation Notes are issued with the full backing of the issuing municipality. General Obligation Notes are used for the same purposes as RANs and BANs.

Commercial Paper and Letter of Credit

Perhaps the most popular instrument available to an airport to provide for short-term financing is the use of commercial paper backed by a Letter of Credit (LOC). This instrument involves the sale of commercial paper in the competitive financial markets by a commercial paper dealer in the name of the airport sponsor or municipality. The commercial paper is sold under the guarantee of a bank LOC. Commercial paper is typically issued in $100,000 increments to fund needed airport improvements. The bank LOC is not expected to ever actually be drawn upon.

8.18 FINANCING CMAA’S REMAINING LOCAL REQUIREMENT

Although the use of municipal debt may represent a viable funding option for CMAA in the future, the Financial Plan does not assume the use of municipal debt to fund the local requirement for the short-term Capital Projects.

The Financial Plan assumes that the CMAA will issue bonds to finance certain of the medium-term Capital Projects including: (i) a portion of the design and construction of Runway 02 and Taxiway A Extension design and construction (II-5); (ii) design and construction of the Terminal Concourse Expansion Design (II-8); (iii) Consolidated Rental Car Quick Turn Around (II-10); and (iv) design and construction of a site for the proposed maintenance center (II-19). These Capital Projects would collectively require approximately $33.9 million in bond proceeds, as depicted on Table 8- 20.

As depicted on Table 8-20, the issuance of municipal debt is an option to the CMAA to provide local funds to complete certain long-term Capital Projects, including a portion of the proposed public parking garage (III-3). Based on current estimated project costs, total bond funds of $39.3 million would be required to complete these projects. The CMAA may also consider the issuance of municipal debt to fund facilities in lieu of third party/tenant funding. Examples of these projects include certain hangar, air cargo site, and aircraft maintenance center development projects. This funding option would provide the CMAA with greater control over the development of the proposed facilities and the opportunity to maximize the potential revenues generated from these facilities.

Given the magnitude of the proposed Capital Projects to be financed in the medium-term and long- term development periods, it is assumed that the debt instrument used would be a standard General Airport Revenue Bond transaction based on similar terms and conditions as other airport debt financings in the United States.

An order of magnitude bond sizing is provided on Table 8-21 to present an estimate of average annual debt service based on needed funding for certain Capital Projects that may be financed with municipal debt during the medium-term and long-term development periods. The demand for these Capital Projects will determine the phasing of each project element as well as the needed project funding. In reality, multiple financings would be necessary to accomplish the local funding of the medium-term and long-term Capital Projects described above. However, for the purpose of this Financial Plan, one bond sizing was prepared for all medium-term and long-term Capital Projects to be financed to provide an order of magnitude estimate of the average annual debt service the CMAA may expect to provide financing for each project element.

Financial Feasibility 8-35 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

In addition to the construction cost of the proposed projects, certain other costs will likely be incurred in connection with an airport debt financing. These other costs may include the cost of a debt service reserve account, the cost of capitalizing interest during the period of construction of the proposed projects, the costs of obtaining various credit enhancements such as bond insurance, and other miscellaneous costs of issuance. For financial planning purposes, total additional financial costs used for this purpose include a debt service reserve and financing contingency of 10 percent and a 2 percent cost of issuance.

Table 8-21 MEDIUM AND LONG TERM CAPITAL PROJECTS BOND SIZING Bond Requirement Project Fund Deposit Medium-Term Projects (2013 - 2017) II-5 Runway 02 and Taxiway A Extension Design and Construction $ 11,527,025 II-8 Terminal Concourse Expansion Design and Construction 14,848,755 II-10 Consolidated Rental Car QTA Design and Construction 3,308,000 II-19 Maintenance Center Site Development Design and Construction 4,228,000 Total Medium Term Projects $ 33,911,780

Long Term Projects (2018 - 2027) III-3 Parking Garage/Baggage Make-Up Design and Construction $ 39,341,393 Total Long-Term Projects $ 39,341,393

Total Medium and Long-Term Projects $ 73,253,173

Debt Service Reserve and Financing Contingency 10% $ 8,324,224 Cost of Issuance 2% $ 1,664,845

Total Estimated Bond Size $ 83,242,242

Average Annual Debt Service1 $ 6,047,458

1 Assumptions: Term = 30 years Rate = 6%

Based on these assumptions, it is estimated that the $73.3 million in medium- and long-term Capital Project cost to be funded with municipal debt would require a financing of approximately $83.2 million, as depicted on Table 8-21.

To calculate the annual debt service (principal and interest) requirement based on a $83.2 million financing, an assumed interest rate of 6.0 percent and a financing term of 30 years were used. These assumptions have been adopted to provide a reasonable framework with which to estimate the financing costs to be incurred if the CMAA proceeds with the development of the Capital Projects. It is important to recognize, however, that due to the inherent fluctuations of the bond investment market and of factors related to identifying probable construction costs, it is inevitable that some or all of the financing assumptions will vary to some degree from those actually

Financial Feasibility 8-36 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

employed and such variances may be significant and adverse to the estimates contained in this Master Plan Update.

Based on these financing assumptions, the total average annual debt service (principal and interest) on the debt issued to fund the medium- and long-term Capital Projects would be approximately $6.0 million per year.

8.19 ALLOCATION OF AVERAGE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE TO PROJECT ELEMENTS

As previously described, CMAA will construct each of the projects funded with municipal debt when justified by sufficient demand. Therefore, an allocation of average annual debt service among the projects being financed is necessary for the purpose of identifying the annual cost of undertaking each project element. Table 8-22 presents an allocation of average annual debt service among the medium- and long-term Capital Projects to be financed. The average annual debt service for each project element is useful in estimating the revenue levels needed to support the facilities being financed.

Table 8-22 MEDIUM AND LONG-TERM CAPITAL PROJECTS ALLOCATION OF DEBT SERVICE

Allocation of Construction Pro Rata Avg. Annual Fund Deposit Share Debt Service Medium-Term Projects (2013 - 2017) II-5 Runway 02 and Taxiway A Extension Design and Construction $ 11,527,025 15.7% $ 951,620 II-8 Terminal Concourse Expansion Design and Construction 14,848,755 20.3% 1,225,848 II-10 Consolidated Rental Car QTA Design and Construction 3,308,000 4.5% 273,094 II-19 Maintenance Center Site Development Design and Construction 4,228,000 5.8% 349,045 Total Medium-Term Projects $ 33,911,780 46.3% $ 2,799,607 Long-Term Projects (2018 - 2027) III-3 Parking Garage/Baggage Make-Up Design and Construction $ 39,341,393 53.7% $ 3,247,852 Total Long-Term Projects $ 39,341,393 53.7% 3,247,852

Total Medium and Long-Term Projects $ 73,253,173 100.0% $ 6,047,458

The annual debt service associated with this financing would be payable with a combination of PFCs, CFCs, and Airport revenues, as presented on Table 8-23.

Financial Feasibility 8-37 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 8-23 MEDIUM AND LONG-TERM CAPITAL PROJECTS DEBT SERVICE FUNDING SOURCES

Airport PFC CFC Revenues Medium-Term Projects (2013 - 2017) II-5 Runway 02 and Taxiway A Extension Design and Construction $ 951,620 $ - $ - II-8 Terminal Concourse Expansion Design and Construction - - 1,225,848 II-10 Consolidated Rental Car QTA Design and Construction - 273,094 - II-19 Maintenance Center Site Development Design and Construction - - 349,045 Total Medium-Term Projects $ 951,620 $ 273,094 $1,574,893 Long-Term Projects (2018 - 2027) III-3 Parking Garage/Baggage Make-Up Design and Construction $ - $1,618,374 $1,629,478 Total Long-Term Projects $ - $1,618,374 1,629,478

Total Medium and Long Term Projects $ 951,620 $1,891,468 $3,204,370

8.20 HISTORICAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION

A review of the historical revenues and expenses is helpful in determining the financial self- sufficiency of the Airport and to help determine the CMAA’s future ability to generate revenues needed to operate and maintain the Airport and to provide funding for the Capital Projects. The CMAA’s revenues and expenses from FY 2005 through FY 2009 are summarized on Table 8-24.

8.20.1 Airport Revenues

The operating revenues are classified by operating line items and have not been classified into any of the Airport’s cost centers. The following provides a summary of each of the primary types of Airport operating revenues.

Airline revenues include landing fees, terminal rentals, baggage fees, loading bridge charges, security and janitorial reimbursements and ground handling fees. Airline revenues represented the second largest source of operating revenues at the Airport, representing 30.4 percent of revenues in FY 2009. As shown on Table 8-24, total airline revenues grew at an average annual rate of 2.6 percent per year, from $2,010,516 in FY 2005 to $2,224,541 in FY 2009. Following is a summary of each type of airline revenue.

Airline Landing Fees

Airline landing fee revenues are generated by a per landing charge paid by the airlines for each 1,000 pound units of maximum aircraft gross landed weight at the Airport in a given year. Landing fee revenues have grown at an average annual growth rate of 0.6 percent from FY 2005 ($817,112) to FY 2009 ($836,455), but were down by 8.3 percent from FY 2008.

Airline Terminal Rentals

Airline terminal rents and baggage fees are those revenues generated for the airlines’ use of airline areas in the passenger terminal building. Airline terminal rentals include exclusive space (ticket counters and offices), preferential space (gate and passenger holdroom areas) and common use

Financial Feasibility 8-38 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

space (baggage claim areas). Total terminal rental and baggage claim revenues remained static from $820,785 in FY 2005 to $829,824 in FY 2009.

Airline Loading Bridge Rentals

Airline loading bridge rentals are paid by the airlines for use of the passenger loading bridges at the Airport. Loading bridge rentals remained relatively static from FY 2005 to FY 2009, increasing slightly from $94,620 to $95,231 during that period.

Table 8-24 HISTORICAL REVENUES AND EXPENSES Avg. Annual Growth 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Rate AIRLINE REVENUES Landing Fees $ 817,112 $ 777,367 $ 813,525 $ 912,486 $ 836,455 0.6% Terminal rental fees 457,491 457,491 446,115 498,597 462,961 0.3% Baggage fees 363,294 363,294 400,062 377,796 366,863 0.2% Loading bridge fees 94,620 94,620 94,952 90,639 95,231 0.2% Security and janitorial 277,999 277,999 305,678 287,014 292,648 1.3% Ground handling fees - - 84,411 247,468 170,383 N/A Total Airline Revenues $ 2,010,516 $1,970,771 $2,144,743 $2,414,000 $2,224,541 2.6% NON-AIRLINE REVENUES Hangar rental $ 356,882 $ 394,462 $ 414,059 $ 434,402 $ 464,894 6.8% Fuel sales 217,036 269,179 350,399 412,148 367,664 14.1% Parking 1,702,540 1,653,148 2,059,056 2,373,460 2,236,243 7.1% Rental car 711,123 733,688 896,489 1,112,892 1,245,847 15.0% Other 881,843 758,497 757,222 813,513 780,373 -3.0% Total Non-Airline Revenues $ 3,869,424 $3,808,974 $4,477,225 $5,146,415 $5,095,021 7.1%

Total Operating Revenues $ 5,879,940 $5,779,745 $6,621,968 $7,560,415 $7,319,562 5.6% OPERATING EXPENSES Personnel services $ 2,818,073 $2,728,006 $2,760,151 $3,125,659 $3,118,412 2.6% Contractual services 148,796 214,191 237,179 487,740 174,941 4.1% Utilities and telephone 474,539 493,684 514,146 500,418 532,131 2.9% Insurance 359,075 337,844 336,542 399,824 408,383 3.3% Repairs and maintenance 154,496 151,412 155,910 269,761 168,547 2.2% Promotion 321,200 280,973 281,996 232,290 188,041 -12.5% Parking management and expenses 256,846 206,631 230,239 267,035 233,453 -2.4% Other Operating Expenses 617,547 1,318,688 616,446 434,387 465,118 -6.8% Total Operating Expenses $ 5,150,572 $5,731,429 $5,132,609 $5,717,114 $5,289,026 0.7%

OPERATING SURPLUS (DEFICIT) $ 729,368 $ 48,316 $1,489,359 $1,843,301 $2,030,536 29.2% NON-OPERATING REVENUES Interest income $ 83,989 $ 142,059 $ 253,451 $ 312,533 $ 228,137 28.4% NON-OPERATING EXPENSES 2002 Bonds Debt Service $ 906,420 $1,117,443 $1,223,889 $1,151,282 $ 783,798 -3.6% Less: PFCs to pay Debt Service (303,651) (374,343) (410,003) (385,679) (262,572) Loss of sale of assets 2,034 - 2,097 - - N/A Total Non-Operating Expenses $ 604,803 $ 743,100 $ 815,983 $ 765,603 $ 521,226 -3.6%

INCOME / (LOSS) $ 208,554 $(552,725) $ 926,827 $1,390,231 $1,737,447 69.9% Source: Historical revenues and expenses CMAA annual audited financial statements.

Financial Feasibility 8-39 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Security Reimbursements

The airlines are billed for the net cost of providing security at the Airport as required by 49 CFR Part 1542, exclusive of amounts received by a TSA Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Agreement. Security reimbursements are a direct bill based on each airline’s pro rata share of enplanements in a given fiscal year. Security reimbursements have increased from $277,999 in FY 2005 to $292,648 in FY 2009, representing an average annual rate of 1.3 percent.

Airline Ground Handling Fees

The CMAA began to provide below the wing ground handling services to certain airlines in FY 2007 and generated $84,411 in revenues in that year. Ground handling fees increased to $247,468 in FY 2008 and decreased to $170,383 in FY 2009. Currently, the CMAA’s Ground Handling Department provides ground handling services to Allegiant Air.

Airport Parking

The largest source of operating revenue in FY 2009 was derived from public parking revenues, representing 30.6 percent of total operating revenues. Such revenues are generated by originating passengers parking vehicles at the Airport. Parking revenues increased from $1,702,540 in FY 2005 to $2,236,243 in FY 2009, representing an average annual growth rate of 7.1 percent. This growth is the result of growth in passenger activity at the Airport and an increase in the public parking rates during the historical review period.

Rental Car Concession Revenues

Rental car revenues are derived from the rental car companies operating at the Airport. The rental car companies pay the CMAA 10 percent of their gross receipts for this privilege. The rental car companies also pay counter rentals, amounts for ready/return parking spaces, and QTA ground rentals. Rental car revenues experienced significant growth since FY 2005, increasing from $711,123 to $1,245,847 in FY 2009, an average annual growth rate of 15.0 percent. These changes are attributable to increases in passenger activity at the Airport and annually higher minimum annual guarantees.

Hangar Rentals

The CMAA receives hangar rental revenues for the space leased to hangar tenants. These revenues are based on the lease terms as previously summarized in the Financial Framework section. Hangar rental revenues have increased by 6.8 percent from FY 2005 ($356,882) to FY 2009 ($464,894).

Fuel Flowage Fees

The CMAA receives a fuel flowage fee of $0.13 per gallon for each gallon of aircraft fuel sold to general aviation tenants at the Airport. Fuel flowage fee revenues have increased from $217,036 in FY 2005 to $367,664 in FY 2009, representing an average annual growth rate of 14.1 percent.

Other Operating Revenues

Other operating revenues include monies received from the Airport’s Fixed Base Operator (FBO), TAC-Air; non-airline/non-rental car terminal rents including the TSA and other tenants; food, beverage and retail concession revenues; rental property revenues; and advertising among other

Financial Feasibility 8-40 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

miscellaneous revenues. These revenues have decreased by an average of 3.0 percent per year from $881,843 in FY 2005 to $780,373 in FY 2009.

Total Operating Revenues

Total operating revenues increased from $5,879,940 in FY 2005 to $7,319,562 in FY 2009. This represented an average annual growth rate of 5.6 percent.

8.20.2 Airport Expenses

Historical expenses are also depicted on Table 8-24. As shown, the CMAA summarizes the expense detail from its general ledger into 15 expense categories. The largest category of Airport expenses is personnel services, which are the expenses to retain qualified personnel to operate the Airport. Personnel services expenses were $3,118,412 in FY 2009, accounting for 59.0 percent of total operating expenses.

Utilities and telephone expense category was the next largest component, representing 10.1 percent of total operating expenses at the Airport in FY 2009. Contractual services expenses experienced the highest levels of growth rates throughout the examined period, growing at an average annual rate of 4.1 percent. The remaining expense line items are general operating categories required to operate the Airport.

Total operating expenses have increased by an average annual growth rate of 0.7 percent from FY 2005 through FY 2009, but declined by 7.5 percent from FY 2008 to FY 2009.

8.20.3 Operating Surplus

As shown on Table 8-24 the CMAA has generated an operating surplus each year of the analysis period. This surplus increased from $729,368 in FY 2005 to $2,030,536 in FY 2009.

8.20.4 Non-Operating Revenues

Non-operating revenues include PFCs and interest income. As previously discussed, PFCs are restricted revenues used to pay for certain capital improvements and debt service approved by the FAA. Therefore, only PFCs used to pay debt service are depicted on Table 8-24 as an ‘offset’ to debt service from FY 2005 to FY 2009, as will be hereinafter described.

Interest income represents the earnings on the CMAA’s unrestricted investments. Interest income increased from $83,989 in FY 2005 to $228,137 in FY 2009.

8.20.5 Non-Operating Expenses

2002 Bonds Debt Service

In 1990, the CMAA issued its Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 1990, for $13,980,000 to provide a portion of the permanent financing of a major terminal redevelopment and expansion project. The 1990 Bonds were subsequently refinanced by the CMAA in 2002 with the issuance of its Variable Rate Demand Revenue and Refunding Bonds, Series 2002A, in the amount of $12,625,000 and its Taxable Variable Rate Demand Revenue Bonds, Series 2002B, in the amount of $4,125,000. The debt service on the 2002A Bonds was approximately 28.8 percent PFC-eligible and the debt service on the 2002B Bonds was 100 percent PFC-eligible. The 2002B Bonds were retired in May 2008. Table 8-24 presents the combined debt service on the 2002A Bonds and the 2002B Bonds.

Financial Feasibility 8-41 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

In addition to debt service, the CMAA recognized a loss of approximately $4,000 from the sale of assets during the historical review period which were not fully depreciated.

As will be described in the Pro Forma Cash Flow section, the 2002A Bonds were refunded in May 2009.

8.21 PRO FORMA CASH FLOW

Projected operating revenues for the short-term development period are presented on Table 8-25. These figures were projected based on historical trends and existing lease agreements, as well as anticipated growth in passenger enplanements and general aviation operations. The following summarizes the projection of operating revenue presented in Table 8-25.

8.21.1 Airport Revenues

Airline Revenues

As previously described, airline rates and charges are adopted annually by the CMAA. Although the CMAA may ultimately implement a cost recovery methodology to calculate airline rates and charges in the future, the pro forma cash flow assumes that the CMAA will increase such charges by the projected growth rate in the CPI as projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), or 1.2 percent per annum from FY 2010 to FY 2014.

Airline landing fee revenues are budgeted to decrease from $836,455 in FY 2009 to $609,717 in FY 2010 as a result of potential flight reductions. Airline landing fee revenues are projected to increase thereafter based on a combination of the level of anticipated airline activity and annual increases in the landing fee rate tied to the CPI. Because of the projected increases in commercial airline activity and increases in the CPI, airline landing fee revenue is projected to increase from $609,717 in Budget FY 2010 to $664,320 in FY 2014, an average annual increase of 2.2 percent per year.

Airline terminal rentals are also budgeted to decrease significantly in FY 2010, declining from $462,961 in FY 2009 to $393,991. This reduction is the result of loss of a consolidation of terminal rental space by Delta and Northwest stemming from a merger of those airlines on October 28, 2008. Airline terminal rental and baggage fees, loading bridge fees, security reimbursements, and ground handling fees are projected to grow at CPI rate from FY 2010 through FY 2014.

Total airline revenues are projected to increase from $1,868,712 in FY 2010 to $1,987,452 in FY 2014.

Financial Feasibility 8-42 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 8-25 PRO FORMA CASH FLOW

Avg. Annual Budget Growth 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Rate Airline Revenues Landing Fees $ 609,717 $ 610,574 $ 612,596 $ 637,934 $ 664,320 2.2% Terminal rental fees 393,991 398,325 403,504 408,749 414,063 1.2% Baggage fees 366,863 370,898 375,720 380,604 385,552 1.2% Loading bridge fees 81,795 82,695 83,770 84,859 85,962 1.2% Security Reimbursements 292,648 295,867 299,713 303,609 307,556 1.2% Ground handling fees 123,698 125,059 126,685 128,331 130,000 1.2% Total Airline Revenues $ 1,868,712 $ 1,883,418 $ 1,901,987 $ 1,944,086 $ 1,987,452 1.6%

Non-Airline Revenues Hangar rental $ 462,719 $ 467,809 $ 473,891 $ 480,051 $ 486,292 1.2% Fuel sales 372,344 376,948 381,553 386,586 391,620 1.3% Parking 2,085,076 2,065,069 2,045,062 2,103,063 2,162,709 0.9% Additional Parking Revenues - - - 97,567 97,567 0.0% Rental car 1,214,901 1,206,027 1,197,442 1,229,277 1,261,988 1.0% West Development Area - - 259,043 262,411 265,822 1.3% Other 776,546 785,088 795,294 805,633 816,106 1.2% Total Non-Airline Revenues $ 4,911,586 $ 4,900,941 $ 5,152,285 $ 5,364,589 $ 5,482,103 2.8%

Total operating revenues $ 6,780,298 $ 6,784,359 $ 7,054,272 $ 7,308,675 $ 7,469,556 2.4%

Operating Expenses Personnel services $ 3,062,987 $ 3,141,525 $ 3,222,076 $ 3,304,693 $ 3,389,428 2.6% OPEB Liability Funding 351,098 360,100 369,334 378,804 388,517 2.6% Contractual services 175,520 182,769 190,317 198,177 206,361 4.1% Utilities and telephone 504,072 518,716 533,784 549,291 565,248 2.9% Insurance 439,372 453,735 468,569 483,887 499,706 3.3% Repairs and maintenance 247,224 252,663 258,222 263,903 269,709 2.2% Promotion & Air Service Dev 315,165 318,632 322,774 326,970 331,221 1.2% Parking-management fees 247,295 250,015 253,265 256,558 259,893 1.2% Other Operating Expenses 378,075 382,234 387,203 392,236 397,335 1.2% Total Operating Expenses $ 5,720,808 $ 5,860,389 $ 6,005,544 $ 6,154,518 $ 6,307,418 2.5%

Operating Surplus (Deficit) $ 1,059,490 $ 923,970 $ 1,048,728 $ 1,154,157 $ 1,162,138 2.3%

Nom-Operating Revenues Interest income $ 138,915 $ 138,915 $ 138,915 $ 138,915 $ 138,915 0.0%

Non-Operating Expenses 2009 Bonds Debt Service $ 644,889 $ 644,889 $ 644,889 $ 644,889 $ 644,889 0.0% Less: PFCs to pay Debt Service $ (185,921) $ (185,921) $ (185,921) $ (185,921) $ (185,921) 0.0% Total Non-Operating Expenses $ 458,968 $ 458,968 $ 458,968 $ 458,968 $ 458,968 0.0% Income /(Loss) $ 739,437 $ 603,918 $ 728,676 $ 834,104 $ 842,085 3.3% Source: Budget FY 2010 revenues and expenses CMAA.

Financial Feasibility 8-43 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

AIRLINE COST PER ENPLANED PASSENGER Airline cost per enplaned passenger is a ratio that measures the cost to an airline or group of airlines serving an airport. The airline cost per enplaned passenger is calculated by dividing the total revenues an airport receives from its passenger airlines in a year by the total number of enplaned passengers in the same year. This ratio is useful to both airports and airlines in evaluating an airport’s cost relative to the cost of operating at another airport. For the purpose of calculating the airline cost per enplaned passenger for the Airport, ground handling fees were removed from total airline revenues, as these fees are only collected from airlines who engage the CMAA’s ground handling service in lieu of providing those services with airline employees and equipment. As depicted on Table 8-26, the airline cost per enplaned passenger is estimated to increase from $5.58 in FY 2010 to $5.73 in FY 2014, an estimated average annual rate of 0.6 percent per year, which is less than the projected growth in CPI during that time.

Table 8-26 PROJECTED AIRLINE COST PER ENPLANED PASSENGER Avg. Ann Budget Growth Cost Per Enplaned Passenger 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Rate Airline Costs Airline Revenues $ 1,868,712 $ 1,883,418 $ 1,901,987 $1,944,086 $1,987,452 1.55% Less: Ground Handling Fees (123,698) (125,059) (126,685) (128,331) (130,000) 1.25% Net Airline Revenues $1,745,014 $1,758,359 $1,775,302 $1,815,755 $ 1,857,452 1.57%

Enplanements 312,497 309,498 306,500 315,193 324,132 0.92%

Airline Cost per Enplaned Passenger $ 5.58 $ 5.68 $ 5.79 $ 5.76 $ 5.73 0.65%

Airport Parking

Airport parking revenues are affected by the parking rates charged by the CMAA, the Airport’s passenger profile (business or leisure), and the availability of parking spaces, among other factors. However, the most important factor in airport parking revenues is directly related to the level of originating passenger enplanement activity at an airport. Therefore, Airport parking revenues have been projected at the FAA Approved Enplanement Forecast, as described in Chapter 3 of the Master Plan Update.

Airport parking revenues are budgeted to decrease from $2,236,243 in FY 2009 to $2,085,076 in FY 2010, based on an assumed 10 percent reduction in enplaned passengers in FY 2010. However, based on four months year-to-date enplanement activity, FY 2010 enplanements are 7.2 percent over the same period in FY 2009. Airport parking revenues are projected to grow at an average annual rate of 0.9 percent to $2,162,709 in FY 2014.

ADDITIONAL PARKING REVENUES The short-term Capital Projects include the design and construction of a surface parking area (I-5) in 2012, which is estimated to cost $2,686,000. It is assumed that the CMAA will increase certain parking rates at the Airport, which together with the demand induced by passengers using this remote lot would result in an amount necessary to recover approximately one half or 50 percent of

Financial Feasibility 8-44 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update the amortization of the total cost of the proposed surface parking lot. Therefore, additional parking revenues are estimated based on the recovery of approximately 50 percent of the amortization of the gross cost associated with the proposed surface parking lot ($2,686,000). Based on a 30-year useful life and a 6.0 percent imputed interest rate, the annual amortization of this improvement is estimated to be $195,135 per year.

Rental Car Companies

As previously discussed, five rental car companies operate on the Airport. The agreements covering terminal counter space and ready/return parking spaces expired on December 31, 2002 and the rental car companies have continued to operate these spaces on a month-to-month basis. Of the five rental car companies operating on the Airport, three are operating rental car QTA facilities under current operating agreements. These agreements originated on April 1, 2008 and expire on March 31, 2010. These three service facility agreements further provide for one additional three-year term, extending the agreement to March 31, 2013. It is assumed that the rental car agreements will be extended or renegotiated upon similar terms as the existing rental car agreements during the pro forma cash flow period (FY 2010 – FY 2014).

Based on an analysis of the CMAA’s budget for FY 2010, approximately 89 percent of the operating revenue generated by the rental cars at the Airport is a result of the 10 percent concession fee on the rental car companies at the Airport. The remaining 11 percent is generated from terminal rentals, service facility rentals and ready/return space fees. The portion of rental car revenues related to the concession fees are projected to increase by the growth of enplanements. The FAA approved enplanement forecast presented in Chapter 3, adjusted for estimated actual 2009 enplanements was used for this purpose. Based on this adjusted forecast, the total enplanements are projected to grow by an average annual rate of 0.9 percent from FY 2010 to FY 2014. The portion of rental car revenues related to terminal space and service facility rentals is projected to increase by the CPI index each year (4.0 percent) through FY 2014.

Based on these assumptions, rental car revenue is anticipated to increase from $1,214,901 in budget FY 2010 to $1,261,988 in FY 2014, representing an average annual growth rate of 1.0 percent over this period.

Hangar Rentals

Historically, the operating revenues associated with hangar rentals increased at an average annual growth rate of 6.8 percent from FY 2005 to FY 2009. For the purposes of this Financial Plan, it was assumed that the operating revenues from this source would increase by a 1.2 percent increase in the CPI. Total hangar rentals are projected to increase from $462,719 in FY 2010 to $486,292 in FY 2014.

WEST DEVELOPMENT AREA HANGAR RENTALS As described in Chapter 7 of the Master Plan Update, Phase 1 of the West Development Area project in the short-term development period includes the design and construction of a 20-acre site (I-7), fuel farm, two hangars with a total space of 22,000 square feet and approximately 30 vehicle parking spaces (I-8). As depicted on Table 8-14, these improvements are projected to be constructed in 2010 and 2011, and assumed to be available for lease in 2012 at a total estimated construction cost of $5.9 million, of which approximately $3.2 million is related to hangar development. Total hangar rental revenues are estimated based on an 8 percent of fair market value methodology, although 10 percent could be used. Assuming the CMAA is successful in leasing these facilities at fair market value, total West Development Area hangar rental revenues

Financial Feasibility 8-45 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

are estimated to be $259,043 beginning in FY 2012. These revenues are projected to increase annually by the projected CPI rate, to $265,822 in FY 2014.

Fuel Flowage Fees

From FY 2005 through budget FY 2009, the Airport realized an average annual growth rate of 14.1 percent in fuel flowage fees at the Airport. It was assumed that these operating revenues would increase by the growth of general aviation operations at the Airport each year thereafter. As shown in Table 8-25, this results in the fuel flowage fee increasing from approximately $372,344 in FY 2010 to $391,620 in FY 2014, representing an average annual growth rate of 1.3 percent over this period.

Total Operating Revenue

As shown on Table 8-25, total operating revenue is projected to increase from $6,780,298 in FY 2010 to $7,469,556 in FY 2014, representing an average annual growth rate of 2.4 percent over this period.

8.21.2 Operating Expenses

Projected operating expenses for the financial forecast period are also presented in Table 8-25. Based on an analysis of historical growth trends, certain categories including personnel services, contractual services, insurance, and repairs and maintenance were anticipated to increase at each respective category’s historical growth rate for each year over the financial forecast period. Utilities, promotion and parking management fees and expenses are projected to grow at projected rate of growth in the CPI as projected by the CBO.

Collectively, operating expenses are projected to increase from $5,720,808 in budget FY 2010 to $6,307,418 in FY 2014. This represents an average annual growth rate of 2.5 percent.

Non-Operating Expenses

2009 BONDS DEBT SERVICE In May 2009, the CMAA decided to refund $12,625,000 of outstanding 2002A Bonds to reduce its annual debt service obligations resulting in enhanced cash flows. The CMAA issued the 2009 Series Revenue Refunding Bonds in the par amount of $6,600,000 to be used in combination with $6,025,000 in restricted reserve funds and PFCs to refund the 2002A Bonds and to pay for certain costs of issuance. The 2009 Bonds have a fixed interest rate of 5.41 percent with a 15-year amortization and a 10-year maturity. A schedule of 2009 Bonds debt service is provided on Table 8-27.

Financial Feasibility 8-46 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Table 8-27 DEBT SERVICE - 2009 BONDS

5.41% Debt Outstanding Fiscal Year Principle Interest Service Balance $ 6,557,1691 2010 292,268 352,620 644,888 6,600,000 2011 308,912 335,977 644,889 6,600,000 2012 326,289 318,600 644,889 6,600,000 2013 344,643 300,246 644,889 6,600,000 2014 364,030 280,859 644,889 6,600,000 2015-2019 4,921,027 1,047,160 5,968,187 6,600,000 Total $ 6,557,169 $ 2,635,462 $ 9,192,631 $ 39,600,000 1 Net of $ 42,831 principle payment made in FY 2009 Source: CMAA FY 2009 Audited Financial Statements.

The 2009 Bonds are collateralized by the Net Revenues and all other property in which security interests or liens are granted as specified in the Loan and Purchase Agreement, the Pledge Agreement, and the Assignment between the CMAA and First Tennessee Bank. The 2009 Bonds are also backed by an Airport Operation Service Contract with the City of Chattanooga. Under the Service Contract, the City is obligated to make debt service payments to the bank in the event of default by the CMAA.

The debt service on the 2009 Bonds is approximately 28.8 percent PFC-eligible based on an analysis of the CMAA’s PFC Program. As depicted on Table 8-25, PFCs are used to reduce the 2009 Bonds debt service to be paid with Airport revenues.

CAPITAL PROJECTS As previously discussed, the local funding for all the short-term period development is anticipated to be paid from a combination of AIP and State grants, PFCs, and Airport cash. Given the CMAA’s existing reserves of $5.0 million as of the end of December 2009 and $2.1 million in positive cash flow through 2012, the CMAA is projected to be able to provide for the local funding requirement of the short-term Capital Projects.

Two of the short-term Capital Projects are self-liquidating projects. These projects include a portion of the West Airfield Development and the Surface Parking Lot project. These projects are anticipated to generate additional revenues to the CMAA to be used to offset the cost of funding these improvements. For the purposes of this Master Plan Update, it was assumed that CMAA would be able to recover at least a portion of the additional amortization expenses associated with these two projects. The additional operating revenues resulting from increased parking revenues and the new hangar leases are included in the pro forma cash flow.

8.21.3 Pro Forma Cash Flow Analysis Summary

Table 8-25 presents the Airport’s estimated operating income for the period of FY 2010 through 2014 based on the projection of operating revenues and operating expenses discussed above. As a result of the analysis discussed herein, operating surplus is anticipated to increase by 2.3 percent from $1,059,490 in FY 2010 to $1,162,138 in FY 2014.

Financial Feasibility 8-47 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

Total Airport income after payment of debt service on the 2009 Bonds is the amount that may be used to pay the local, non-PFC share of the Capital Projects or that may be deposited in the CMAA’s unrestricted reserve account. Total Airport income is projected to increase from $739,437 in FY 2010 to $842,085 in FY 2014.

8.22 SUMMARY

Following is a summary of the Financial Plan including the assumptions used to fund the Capital Projects recommended in the short-term development period and pro forma cash flows:

 CMAA’s financial structure, current leases with major tenants, and historical revenues and expenses were examined to project future operating revenues and operating expenses.  The total estimated cost of the short-term Capital Projects is $40.6 million, as presented in Table 8-14.  The funding for the proposed Capital Projects during the short-term development period is as follows: o FAA AIP $25.4 million o Economic Stimulus 3.0 million o State 9.8 million o PFC 1.4 million o CMAA 1.0 million  The total estimated cost of the medium- and long-term Capital Projects is $203.3 million, as presented in Table 8-16.  The funding for the proposed Capital Projects during the medium- and long-term development period is as follows: o FAA AIP $42.0 million o State 18.0 million o Third Party/Tenant 44.3 million o PFC paygo 7.2 million o TSA 6.3 million o CMAA Cash 12.3 million o Airport Bonds 73.3 million  It is recommended that CMAA closely monitor the Federal AIP and the TNDOT funding program for any changes that may enhance or adversely affect the assumed future funding of the recommended projects.  Total Airport operating revenues are projected to increase from $6.8 million in FY 2010 to approximately $7.5 million in FY 2014, representing an average annual growth rate of 2.4 percent.  Operating expenses are projected to increase from $5.7 million in FY 2010 to $6.3 million in FY 2014, representing an average annual growth rate of 2.5 percent.  Operating surplus is projected to increase from $1.1 million in FY 2010 to $1.2 million in FY 2014 based on the assumptions contained in this chapter.  The staging of the recommended projects is flexible. CMAA should proactively monitor/revise these projects on an annual basis to ensure projects are not implemented before the appropriate demand levels.

Financial Feasibility 8-48 FINAL REPORT Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport Authority Master Plan Update

 CMAA should submit another PFC application to impose and use PFCs on PFC-eligible Capital Projects. This Financial Plan assumes that CMAA will be authorized to pay for such eligible portion of the projects in the short-term development period with PFC revenue.  CMAA should consider implementing a CFC to begin accumulating such revenues in anticipation of future rental car related projects in the medium-term or sooner if justified by demand.  The status of the Trust Fund used to fund the FAA, including the AIP reauthorization is uncertain. Other uncertainties include the future reauthorization of the AIP and the future of the State Transportation Equity Fund. The Financial Plan assumes the CMAA will continue to be successful in receiving AIP discretionary and state funding at the levels depicted on Table 8-14. Given the assumed levels of funding provided herein, it is reasonable to expect the CMAA can fund the short-term Capital Projects.

Financial Feasibility 8-49 FINAL REPORT