Table 3-1. Departments of interviewees.

(11) estimated their capital investment projects budget, and, based on that budget, they allocated their operations and preventive maintenance budgets. An airport’s budget generally relies on its city or state, while some capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) budgets come from the FAA’s AIP program. Some airports stated that their total budget usually depends upon the city and state legislature because they approve the budget. However, most of the airports prepared their capital investment and O&M budgets and sent them to cities or states to get approved. Some airport budgets are prepared based on the revenues collected during each fiscal year, but some general aviation airports do not generate revenues, and their budgets are provided by the state. One airport mentioned that their city used enterprise management software to help in the budgeting process.

Most of the airports agreed that their O&M budgets somehow depend upon the capital improvement budget. If there is much capital investment in their airport, then it will impact the O&M budget during that fiscal year. However, the capital and O&M budget provided by the FAA is independent of the revenues generated by airports. The budget provided to maintain assets, as per 14 CFR Part 139, is based on whether the airports have fulfilled their grant assurance requirements. If the airport fails to meet these requirements, they become ineligible for FAA AIP funding.

Some airports have developed 5-year or 10-year master and capital improvement programs, identified all their needs, and allocated funds over those years. O&M departments also participate in CIP program development, so that the budget required for O&M can be included in that program. Some state-funded airports said that they do not receive all their requested funds because legislatures need to allocate their budgets to other areas. Some airports mentioned that their overall budgets were cut by up to 10% due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to budget cuts, some airports have had difficulty fulfilling the Part 139 requirements for their assets.

When asked about strategies to allocate their budgets for capital and O&M, most airport representatives stated that the CIP is prepared based on the evaluations of asset conditions and asset life. Some airports meet about 6 months before the fiscal year ends and prepare the capital investment plan and O&M budget based on feedback from different departments; this planned budget is then sent to a higher authority for approval. Most airport representatives stated that the capital investment budget is based on the needs of new assets, and they seek input from all departments when preparing this type of budget.

One airport has developed a points-based system to allocate the replacement or capital investment budget based on an asset’s importance to security, efficiency, and customer experience, as well as the asset’s condition. The asset importance is ranked from 1 to 4 based on security, efficiency, and customer experience, with 4 being highly important and 1 being less important. Similarly, the assets’ conditions are also ranked from 1 to 3, with 1 being very new and 3 being very old. Based on these two factors, a risk matrix is developed by multiplying the ranks of these two factors. The highest risk-value assets will get higher importance for providing a replacement, or in the capital budget, during the budgeting process. This airport uses a similar process to allocate the maintenance budgets for its assets.

The maintenance division for one of the large-hub airports surveyed developed its own 10 goals (such as customer experience and environmental and sustainability), and they create the budgets

accordingly to align with these goals. The budget is also developed using a bottom-up staffing model that determines the support work necessary for each group working on a maintainable asset (e.g., HVAC staff would have a full-time equivalent calculated based on that asset). The budget is mostly leveraged by historical trends, and fixed increases are added to the previous years’ budget, accounting for existing facilities. Resources for new expansions of facilities or systems are additionally requested. In parallel, the maintenance division also assesses the capital development needs for the airport, which is a five-year rolling program. This assessment involves a much larger group, including an investment committee that includes operations, security, commercial management, airport dining and retail, and properties teams.

The budget, once allocated to maintenance, is used in a broad range of areas based on priority needs. Maintenance works off moving targets (not static), whether in terms of regulatory compliance or level of service provided. Even though it might be easy to prioritize the assets in terms of importance, the major challenge for this large-hub airport is when assets are of equal importance. In this scenario, criticality measures become the hardest to assess because definitions of what is critical vary.

The majority of airport representatives agreed that they do not have fixed preventive maintenance budgets for their assets. Some airports allocate preventive maintenance budgets based on departments or asset types. The airport divides asset types based on working groups or cost centers. Any assets related to electrical distribution will fall under the electrical group (lighting in roadways, interiors, ramps, airfields, etc.). The pavement maintenance management group will cover all the activities related to maintenance of the airfield’s pavement (runways, taxiways, ramps, etc.). Some airports categorize assets based on cost centers (maintenance management, buildings, airfields, utilities, etc.). Other airports allocate their preventive maintenance budgets based on the condition, age, maintenance history, and work orders of those assets. When asked about written strategies developed by the airports, none could provide documentation of this process.

When asked about their budgeting processes aligning with maintenance objectives, the majority of airport representatives stated that their budgeting process aligns with their maintenance objectives. Some interviewees mentioned that their airports have developed priority lists of assets to maintain every year, and they follow that list when allocating maintenance budgets. Other interviewees mentioned that their airport’s priority is to maintain the assets required by Part 139 because the funding for those assets is provided federally. If grant assurance and Part 139 requirements are not fulfilled, then the airport will become ineligible for the FAA AIP funding. Some interviewees stated that they provide enough maintenance funds for their assets associated with customers’ safety and security. One airport has a tiered budgetary category for maintenance, e.g., an annual recurring maintenance and replacement schedule. Representatives from three airports stated that their budgeting processes do not align with maintenance objectives because their states do not provide enough funds to maintain assets. Some of the interviewees agreed that, due to COVID-19, their budgeting processing could not align with their maintenance objectives because their maintenance budgets were significantly reduced in the last fiscal year.

The airport representatives were asked for suggestions to improve their airports’ budgeting processes. Out of representatives from 18 airports, three stated that they are happy with the budgeting processes they have in place now. They stated that their budgets were prepared based on all the departments’ inputs, and they go through different levels before being approved. Therefore, the process is detail-oriented, and there are checks and balances in their budgeting processes. Representatives from five airports noted they need to have very good asset condition data in the CMMS, as well as the capability to analyze the data to predict the capital and maintenance budgets of their airports. One interviewee mentioned that they want to prepare a health condition index of an asset that includes various factors with weights to allocate the maintenance, capital, or replacement budget for the asset. This suggestion can be related to one airport’s effort to design a risk

matrix when preparing its overall budget. Some interviewees mentioned that there should be better communication and working environments between different departments during the budgeting process. Every department believes that they need a higher budget than another department. Representatives from two airports mentioned that the budget approval authorities should visit the airport before approving the budget so that they are aware of the airport’s real situation. Finally, three interviewees suggested that the legislature needs to be kept away from the budgeting process.

One of the airport representatives interviewed reported that they had recently added a new role in their maintenance division that functions as an “enterprise asset manager.” The goal of this role is to develop a formal condition assessment and forecasting tool that can plan for renewal and replacement, as well as keep track of assets’ conditions from an engineering perspective while working closely to feed maintenance with the information collected and recommendations made, which should align with the airport’s overall goals. The first step in using such a tool is determining the process for standardizing the airport’s inventory. Currently, the airport is using many inventory management systems that handle various individual pieces (work orders, accounting, and engineering drawings), but they do not have a comprehensive inventory system, which is the basis for any condition assessment modeling tool. The new system will be based on real data condition assessments and facilities planning, and will optimally help identify the asset condition, location, and function, among many other things, so a comprehensive assessment that can advise maintenance efforts can align the inventory to the objectives. It will become a long-term forecast and planning tool that can provide projected replacement dates and information to better inform maintenance decisions. Such a tool will analyze the data to justify the decisions recommended in advance of sponsorship-identified scope and kickoff, including financial modeling of the various options (refurbish, replace, or maintain). It will become a tool that connects various specialties from their working silos (engineers, financial analysts, etc.) and thus, improve coordination between them.

3.2 Airports’ Maintenance Budget Allocation Processes

The majority of surveyed airports (14) have budget allocation processes for preventive maintenance. They allocate maintenance budgets based on asset classes. All the airports divide their assets into various classes, some based on airfield, landside, equipment, and building, while others follow the asset classes provided in the CMMS. Some airports use IBM Maximo systems to categorize asset classes. It was also found that some airports divide their assets into three main categories (high, medium, and low priority) based on their importance and regulatory Part 139 requirements, with high-priority assets including ARFF equipment, fire alarm systems, life safety systems, safety vehicles, runways, and snow removal equipment. HVAC systems, baggage handling systems, and vehicles were categorized as medium priority based on their importance and impact on the safety and security of the airports’ customers. Some airports also use a cost center for their equipment, which is based on asset function, e.g., airfield, terminal building, parking, mechanical, electrical, and information technology. Some airports divide their assets into ground, building, equipment, and miscellaneous categories, while others list assets per department, e.g., facilities, airfield, fleet, etc. Finally, some use a multiple-asset organization structure system that accommodates multiple needs from various perspectives (managerial, maintenance, etc.). Their systems encompass the Uniformat by type (which is associated with Building Information Management and Construction Specification Institute Master specifications, as well as associated with RSMeans) and Global Positioning System by location, as well as including a managerial reporting system. This does not become a single, fixed hierarchical system, but a fluid one that allows for reporting from various perspectives: department, location, and/or class.

Every year, airports develop O&M budgets based on the asset classes they have categorized. Before preparing the maintenance budget for each asset class, the asset managers, or the department

or group responsible for the maintenance of those assets, will prepare the budget and submit it to the airport authority. Some airports have work order management systems, and they track the required maintenance budgets from those systems. While estimating preventive maintenance budgets, the asset managers rely on their experience and asset condition data. All the surveyed airports have Pavement Condition Index (PCI) data to determine their maintenance budgets for pavement. For vehicles and equipment, the preventive maintenance budget is prepared by following the manufacturer’s O&M guidelines, the equipment’s life or operation hours, or the vehicle’s mileage.

Most airport representatives agreed that they do not have a robust system to estimate the preventive maintenance budget of the terminal building, as compared to pavement maintenance. One airport provided the preventive maintenance budget for airfield and building maintenance based on percentage. An interviewee also mentioned that they provide budgets uniformly across all asset classes. One airport has developed a risk matrix to provide the maintenance and replacement budget for their assets. The risk matrix has two components: one is the weight provided to an asset’s importance, and the other is the weight provided to the asset’s life. The combination of those two components provides the quantitative value used for the budgeting process.

Representatives from two surveyed airports mentioned that they do not have any systematic approach to budget for asset maintenance. Further, the research team did not find any documentation from the airports about the maintenance budget allocation process for airport assets. However, one airport has developed a capital asset management plan that uses a risk matrix to allocate their replacement assets, as well as for maintenance purposes.

Very few airport representatives stated that their annual maintenance budgets were enough to maintain their assets. Therefore, most airports prioritize assets for maintenance based on their importance to security, regulatory requirements, and passenger comfort. The priority of maintenance is given to any assets that are covered by regulatory requirements (14 CFR Part 139 or other state requirements). According to most of the interviewees, the highly prioritized assets for annual preventive maintenance budgets are life safety and security, fire suppression systems, electrical distribution, runway pavement, and terminal building HVAC systems. For other assets, if the budget is low, they try to defer maintenance but do not completely ignore the assets. Maintenance frequency is reduced in some assets such as jet bridges, baggage handling systems, moving walkways, service vehicles, taxiways, ramps, etc.

Some airports have a process of providing high, medium, and low prioritization to assets so that maintenance budgets can be allocated accordingly. The representatives from most surveyed airports stated that they provide the budget for those assets that the FAA requires they maintain to get federal funding for those assets. Two airports mentioned that they budget preventive maintenance based on their needs in any given year and start it from scratch. Every year they have enough funds for the maintenance of every asset, which is not true for other airports. One of the airports stated that they build a contingency fund every year so that, if any emergency maintenance or replacement scenario arises, they can use that fund to maintain or replace the assets.

The majority of the airport representatives (15) stated that they prepare the maintenance budget based on asset condition data. However, the extent of data collection and utilization for each asset varies. All airports keep PCI pavement data every 3 years and use it to prepare the preventive maintenance budgets for runways, taxiways, and ramps. Most interviewees also mentioned that they keep asset condition data and use it for budgeting purposes for assets mandated by Part 139, as well as those tied to federal grant assurances, but agreed that they do not have comprehensive asset condition data or software, or processes to calculate the preventive maintenance budget of every asset based on asset conditions. Some asset condition data are used to prepare maintenance budgets for airfields, vehicles, HVAC, air handlers, escalators, elevators, snow removal equipment, electrical equipment, etc.

For lower-level assets, the airports do not have comprehensive asset condition data. Maintenance budgets for those assets are prepared based on asset managers’ experience and discretion, tracking work orders in CMMSs, and forecasting their preventive maintenance requirements. Three airport representatives stated that they do not prepare their maintenance budgets based on asset conditions. They told us that the maintenance budget should be prepared based on the asset conditions, but it is at the discretion of the asset managers and departments responsible for those assets.

When the interviewees were asked about the sufficiency of their preventive maintenance budgets for assets in fair condition, three responded negatively, and the rest stated that they had enough to operate their airports safely and efficiently. Even those who responded that their budgets were too low stated that they could operate their airports safely. Some airport representatives reported that, even though their budgets were high enough to operate the airports, they have had to delay maintenance, and there is a backlog for asset maintenance. The interviewees stated that they need to maintain the assets required by regulatory requirements, Part 139, and should not jeopardize the safety of customers. Most interviewees said that they maintain primary assets, e.g., pavements and life safety, in very good condition, but, for secondary assets, they might have to defer maintenance due to a lack of funds. However, one airport reported experiencing an organizational shift in how they respond to maintenance needs, moving from a reactive to a proactive approach. For example, for one of their new assets with a direct impact on their main goals, the terminal parking garage, they now have a detailed asset management system, encompassing all the various system condition ratings (structures, HVAC, etc.).

3.3 Impacts of Delayed Preventive Maintenance of Airport Assets

When the interviewees were asked whether they had delayed the preventive maintenance of their assets, 13 said that they had delayed some that were not their primary assets. The airports have not intentionally delayed asset maintenance; however, there are times, due to funding restraints, when airports must make necessary adjustments to their existing budgets and prioritize maintenance. In some cases, emergency repairs to crucial assets, such as ARFF vehicles, grass-cutting tractors, painting machines, and self-inspector vehicles, must be adjusted due to these constraints. These airports comply with the FAA’s Part 139 requirements but can face Letters of Investigation and may face civil penalties from the FAA. Therefore, assets like runways, life safety, fire alarm systems, and fire suppression, along with those required by the regulatory requirements (Part 139) and tied to federal funding, were not delayed. However, five airport representatives stated that they had not delayed the maintenance of any assets.

The airports that have delayed asset maintenance have not completely ignored it, but deferred maintenance frequency. One of the airports stated that they intentionally delayed the preventive maintenance of assets that will be replaced very soon. This is part of a larger plan to avoid spending their maintenance budget on assets of this type. The airport representatives also mentioned that they do not delay the preventive maintenance of critical assets that impact safety and operations. Another airport highlighted that, by using a staffing model in which each staffing unit has multiple scopes of work, they can defer the lowest-priority work and move forward with the most critical first. The risk of deferring maintenance is usually low for the assets with the least impact on customers. The interviewee from this airport also noted that there is sometimes an advantage to the deferred maintenance of some assets that would ultimately benefit from replacement, citing an instance in which a light pole was replaced with a more efficient light-emitting diode (LED).

When asked whether the airports have quantified the effect of assets’ delayed preventive maintenance on costs, operation, and users, five out of 18 interviewees stated that they had not. They said

that their airports had never faced budget problems and had never delayed preventive maintenance of their assets. The rest of the airport representatives reported that they had assessed the damage caused by the delayed maintenance, but none followed any prescribed process, nor had any related documentation. Most interviewees who reported assessing the impact stated that they compared the risks and effects on customer safety and comfort due to delayed asset maintenance with the cost of outsourcing maintenance work. In one example, painting machines cost an interviewee three to four times more to hire a third party to complete their required airfield markings to remain compliant with the Part 139.311 requirement. Additionally, when tractor mowers are down, one airport’s alternative is to hire third-party companies to come in and complete the work, which in most cases costs the airports much more.

Some interviewees stated that they collect some data on the impact of delayed preventive maintenance, but they do not conduct a detailed analysis of those data. Two airport representatives stated that they had written white papers to the FAA to get funding for the renovation of runway pavements and had done some analysis on the economic and safety impact on airport operations. The research team reviewed the white paper provided by one airport but found that no quantitative analysis was done regarding the impact of not upgrading the existing runway. The white paper highlighted the importance of the alternative runway during natural disaster relief periods. The paper also stated that the alternative runway is utilized to separate the mix of air traffic in the airport during peak operational periods. It stated that, if the alternative runway is not renovated, its capabilities will be diminished and the taxiway capacity will be handicapped due to the increases in taxiway occupancy times, resulting in increased fuel utilization. Finally, one airport representative mentioned that most of their impact assessments are done verbally. In summary, none of the airports had a systematic process to determine the consequences of delayed maintenance.

All interviewees agreed that their airports keep asset inventory records and conduct condition assessments. However, some airports only keep asset inventory and condition assessment data for those assets that are required for the Part 139 regulations and tied to FAA grant assurances. All the airports collect PCI data every 3 years and conduct visual inspections of runways, taxiways, and ramps. The airfield striping is also inspected at night and during the day, and readings are taken from a reflectometer to check its visibility. The airfield’s lights and signs are also visually inspected, and condition data are collected. However, condition assessments of landside pavements are not conducted in as much detail as airfield pavements. Some of the airports also keep inventory and condition data of vehicles, snow removal equipment, HVAC, generators, etc.

Additionally, some airport representatives mentioned that they keep these conditional data of their assets in CMMS. Three interviewees stated that they used IBM Maximo software as a part of their CMMS systems. One stated that they use GCR’s ASOCS, and another stated that they are buying Veoci software that will help maintain inventory data. Two airport representatives mentioned that they used CWorks and GIS to keep conditional data of their assets. One airport stated that they keep the work order data and condition data in ArcGIS software. The interviewee reported that they do not keep the inventory data of all assets in the system, and they are trying to upgrade the system so that every airport asset’s condition and work order data can be kept. The rest of the interviewees informed us that they put the asset inventory and their condition data in spreadsheets. Finally, one mentioned that they use the asset inventory and assessment condition data to prepare a 10-year, long-term plan for vehicles.

Out of 18 interviewees, six stated that they do not establish performance objectives for their assets. Some airports did establish performance objectives for assets like airfield pavements. Some of the airports established performance objectives of assets loosely by applying a standard depreciation schedule. Some used the manufacturer’s guidelines to estimate the life of the equipment. However, one airport representative mentioned that estimating the life of the equipment with manufacturer’s guidelines is not a good idea. According to this interviewee, the equipment life

should be estimated based on the hours of operation and scheduled maintenance. Therefore, the people who are taking care of that equipment should be involved in estimating the life of the equipment based on their experience. Other airports used the experience of their staff to establish the performance objectives of their assets. Another airport representative stated that, when they determined the replacement time for their equipment, they considered not only the useful life of the equipment, but also the priority level assigned to the equipment related to safety, security, efficiency, and customer service.

One interviewee mentioned that they consider the equipment use factor to establish their performance objectives and measure the downtime of constantly running systems, like automated people movers and baggage handling systems, to determine their efficiency. This interviewee also mentioned that they conduct an alternative analysis before replacing equipment. For example, they traded in three old graders and bought two new ones based on efficiency analysis. Additionally, they sometimes rent equipment instead of buying it because it will save them money. Finally, one airport representative mentioned that their goal is to have 100% of the assets available at the time they should be used.

Some airport representatives reported that their airport vehicles for self-inspectors can put on hundreds to thousands of miles each day to meet the Part 139 day and night airfield inspection requirement, and, in some cases, several special inspections if there are construction activities within the airfield environment. Many of these airports have back-up vehicles; however, the challenge many airports face is, when vehicles are purchased, they are purchased several at a time, or in fleets. Therefore, they age, deteriorate, and reach their useful life simultaneously. There is no strategy to purchase the vehicles in intervals so that they will not reach their useful life at the same time.

When asked about the use of FAA and other organizations’ prescribed deterioration models to determine the life of assets and their preventive maintenance schedules, the majority of the airport representatives stated that they use the FAA-prescribed model for airfield pavements only. Some airports hired third-party consultants to analyze the data and prepare preventive maintenance schedules. Some non-hub airport interviewees said that they do not use the FAA deterioration model for pavement maintenance management. For other assets, they do not have any deterioration models, and instead, use their staff’s experience and expertise to determine their deterioration trends. Some airports conduct a risk analysis for their fire trucks to determine their life. Some interviewees mentioned that they follow the FAA advisory circulars to determine the trends of asset deterioration and prepare their preventive maintenance budgets. One airport representative mentioned that they are in the process of buying Veoci (emergency management) software, and it might help them to predict their assets’ deterioration trends.

3.4 Summary of Interview Findings

The interviews with 18 airport asset managers revealed that they have not developed systematic processes for allocating their capital and O&M budgets. Capital budgets are prepared based on the needs and conditions of assets. The airports that are dependent upon their revenues for capital investment generally plan capital projects based on their collected revenues. Most airport representatives agreed that they collect condition data for their high-priority assets, as well as assets that are associated with Part 139 and FAA grant assurances, but they do not systematically use these data for capital and O&M budgeting purposes. Most of the airports prepare their budgets every fiscal year, and they plan the budgets about 6 to 12 months before that fiscal year. During capital and O&M budget planning, all airport departments are involved, and the budgets are reviewed by all concerned parties before being sent to the approving authorities. Therefore, there is a hierarchical budget approval process; however, there was no written documentation available from airports about preparing and managing their budgets. One surveyed airport is

currently in the process of developing a risk matrix to allocate its capital and O&M budgets based on asset priority level and age. In summary, there is no systematic or scientific process for preparing airport budgets, but the majority of airport representatives think that the airport capital and maintenance budgets need to be prepared based on asset conditions.

In addition, the research team could not determine any systematic approach to allocating preventive maintenance budgets. Most of the airport representatives reported that their preventive maintenance budgets need to be prepared based on their assets’ conditions; however, due to a lack of funds and interdepartmental working environments, the process could not be formalized. Most interviewees stated that their preventive maintenance budgets are not enough, but they still operate their airports safely by allocating their budgets to those assets that are highly prioritized and required by Part 139 and FAA grants. Most airport representatives stated that they keep inventories of highly prioritized assets, but do not use these data to determine their preventive maintenance budgets. Most of the airports have delayed preventive maintenance of their lower-priority assets, but they have not quantified the impact of the delayed maintenance in formal ways. The impact analyses are merely done verbally. Most surveyed airports use the FAA deterioration model for pavement; however, none of the airports have any deterioration models for other assets.