CHAPTER 7

Sample Communications and Case Studies

This chapter reviews some sample communications that airports of all sizes can learn from.

Video

Dallas Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) has several videos on its website focusing on an airport-wide sustainability campaign that includes reducing waste, being a good steward of water, and addressing climate change. The sustainability video highlighted in the textbox hits several of the themes recommended in this Guide.

Story Board for DFW Sustainability Video (76)

Key takeaways: While this is a production-quality video that reflects DFW’s communications budget, every airport communications leader has access to a smartphone, allowing the organization to create short, simple videos with scripted messaging and soundbites that can be easily shared via the airport’s (and partners’) website, social media platforms, community newsletter, and blog. Additionally, posting videos to YouTube allows sustainability messaging to be researched on the Internet and communicated to a global audience.

Social Media

San Francisco International Airport (SFO) makes good use of social media, using multiple channels. Figure 7-1 emphasizes how a new terminal at SFO is sustainable. This links the airport’s progress in building capacity, which supports economic growth and is still consistent with its sustainability commitment. The Facebook post also mentions the terminal’s certification from the WELL Building Institute.

Figure 7-2 provides examples of digital media from several airports. Airports should prioritize the use of digital media to communicate about sustainability and minimize print materials to save time, money, and the environment.

Signage and Digital Displays That Support Sustainability

To be consistent with an organization-wide effort to promote sustainability and reduce emissions, airports can use signage to inform passengers and other stakeholders of progress and accomplishments. Figure 7-3 provides some examples.

Promoting Awards and Accreditations

Figure 7-4 lists some of the recognized airport awards and accreditations that airports can achieve and emphasizes the need to communicate what the airport did to achieve them and what that means for sustainability and climate change.

Other Communications Strategies

This section summarizes three other strategies to consider. Airports should consider developing a proactive communications strategy that features a senior executive of the airport explaining how the organization is addressing climate change, including having a sustainability plan with goals and objectives and reporting milestones reached on a regular schedule. The Good Traveler program, which enlists passenger participation and emphasizes using employees as ambassadors, is also underscored.

Counteracting climate change—communications strategy

• Awareness of actions to counteract climate change should start at the top level of the airport leadership. This includes the CEO, the chief communications officer, and leaders of the agency who own, operate, and have political and/or governmental influence on the airport.
• A sustainability strategic plan can be written to evaluate and document what the airport is doing now and what future opportunities are available. An effective strategic plan is communicated both internally and externally and is reviewed routinely to measure results and to ensure continuous improvement.
• In conjunction with the sustainability strategic plan, the airport’s chief communication officer can write a complementary communications plan that includes goals and measurable objectives and outlines the target audiences, tactics, timeline, and budget. Both plans should take into consideration the organization’s fiscal and staff resources for the goals and objectives to be successful.

The Good Traveler

• The Good Traveler (https://the goodtraveler.org/), founded by San Diego International Airport in 2015 and now a stand-alone business, is an easy-to-understand program that brings awareness to passengers about how air travel contributes to the global carbon footprint and offers them opportunities to purchase carbon offsets to mitigate this.

Internal communications—employees as ambassadors

• The best ambassadors to walk the “counteracting climate change” talk are airport leaders and employees. Organizational leaders communicate with staff to set program goals and measurable objectives and motivate employees to identify creative ideas to meet or exceed program goals.

Lessons from Sample Communications

Figures 7-5 through 7-10 summarize some sample communications developed by airports of various sizes to position themselves in the climate change debate. The following list is takeaways from examples that airports may consider.

• Encourage leadership to be fully committed to sustainability and engaged in proactive communications.
• Emphasize the greater good.
• Set targets and meet them, reporting periodically.
• Stress the local jobs and other benefits attributable to the airport.
• Have a sustainability plan and report on accomplishments and specific investments.
• Engage with stakeholders proactively.
• Look to the future and how aviation’s impact is being addressed.

• Use the tools developed in this work program to demonstrate that aviation is the most efficient model of travel for trips currently taken from the airport and that the airport is cooperating with operators who have well-developed sustainability plans.
• Respond to community concerns by telling the airport’s positive story already created through strong partnerships. Through vetted and approved messaging and graphics that communicate the airport’s united front on climate change, the story has already been written. When a reporter requests a comment, it is an opportunity to confidently share the good work that has been achieved.

Figures 7-11, 7-12, and 7-13 emphasize the need to communicate on three important issues:

• The time advantage of air travel and why alternatives are more costly (out-of-pocket costs and time-related costs) and produce more emissions.
• The importance of addressing business trips while showcasing airport sustainability.
• Encouraging private aviation to have sustainability plans (e.g., use of SAF and certified offsets).

Airports should consider developing strategic communications that set real climate goals, communicate them, and get ahead of potential protests.

The textbox “Proactive Strategic Communications Outline” suggests messages airports might adopt in whole or in part. It incorporates the facts established in Chapters 2 through 4, addresses the concerns of groups that are apprehensive about the aviation activity summarized in Chapter 5, considers the communications principles described in Chapter 6, and uses concepts described in the sample communications in this chapter.

Key Findings from In-Depth Case Studies

Twelve in-depth case studies were conducted for this engagement, including detailed interviews with 10 airports. After a desktop study of sustainability messaging for each airport, virtual meetings with 10 airports were conducted using a standardized case study discussion guide that focused on the following.

• How communications in general and on climate change/sustainability are organized at the airport.
• The extent to which stakeholders have expressed interest in climate change versus other environmental concerns.
• The airport’s effort to measure emissions and other sustainability criteria and commitments to reduce them.
• Review of work products developed in this work program, including the economic impacts cited in Chapter 4 and a narrative outlining a balanced view of airport roles and responsibilities with regard to climate change, and benefits of continued aviation growth.

Table 7-1 lists the case study airports, which are listed from large hub to nonhub as categorized by the FAA. Foreign airports are slotted into hub sizes based on their likely categorization by the FAA. DFW and LCY are desktop studies; all other airports participated in a video call.

Key Findings

Some airports expressed a concern with the idea that reducing aviation activity would result in lost economic impacts being linked to airport or aviation industry efforts to mitigate or reduce emissions and climate impacts.

Table 7-1. Case study participants.

NOTE: “Muted” indicates it was not a major concern.

^a These airports were unable to participate in the video call but were studied in detail to better round out the case study sample. As a result, a total of 12 airports were studied.

With Europe providing something of a signpost of what U.S. airports may in the future expect when it comes to climate-change-related issues, it is worth noting that European airports are finding that economic benefit statements have less and less resonance, as climate change issues are seen as more important. Instead, airports often choose to say that they will accommodate growth in aviation in the most responsible and climate-friendly manner. A notable example is AMS, one of Europe’s major hubs; the airport no longer weaves economic impact benefits into its sustainability communications.

Under some circumstances, growth at an airport may be climate friendly. For example, a regional airport within driving distance of a large hub might emphasize its efforts to recapture traffic from the larger airport, which saves travelers time and money and results in fewer GHG emissions.

It is important to note that many U.S. airports, especially those outside the Northeast, do not have the elaborate system of frequent, low-emissions rail connectivity currently available among European cities and countries. Therefore, air transportation can be a more sustainable alternative to driving intrastate and interstate.

Airports exposed to stakeholders who have a higher interest in climate change tend to have specific programs to measure emissions, make commitments to reduce them, pursue various certifications (e.g., ACA, LEED), reduce Scopes 1 and 2 emissions, and work with other parties to reduce or mitigate Scope 3 emissions. The opposite is also true: airports with less exposure to climate interest in their communities had fewer such programs and in some cases none at all.

The wide variation in circumstances that airports find themselves in suggests that the Guide be positioned as featuring a menu of items from which each airport can choose to communicate with stakeholders. Figure 7-14 is an example of a menu taken from the Narrative presented to airports in this task. The complete Narrative is in Appendix B.

Many airports find that reducing Scope 1 (e.g., new vehicles, LED lighting, machinery, HVAC systems) and Scope 2 (purchased energy) emissions is often just good business practice because those changes produce an acceptable return on investment. For Scope 1 emissions, the pace of such programs is often set by the obsolescence of the underlying assets. Reducing Scope 2 emissions usually depends on the availability of green energy sources or the returns from investing in on-site renewable energy projects (e.g., installing solar panels at the airport).

Despite the wide variety of sustainability accreditations and certifications available to airports, applying for these programs can be costly, both in staff resources and fees, which is a deterrent for smaller airports. Some airports choose instead to invest in sustainable programs and projects that are more tangible and revenue enhancing, e.g., installing LED lighting throughout the airport campus.

Preparing for a non-fossil-fuel future will require significant planning and investment. Airports need to start planning now for how they will accommodate hydrogen or electric aircraft; the latter may be flying before the end of this decade. Similarly, thought needs to be given about how SAF can be transported to the airport.

CO₂ issues are national and global, while nitrogen oxide and noise issues are local. While not dismissing what airports are doing, when it comes to CO₂ emissions, climate groups are focused on airline emissions, as these account for 95%+ of the industry total. However, local community groups are far more likely to focus on the airport rather than the airline, as for them, air pollution (via nitrogen oxides) and noise are the primary concerns. This suggests that airports may need a different strategy for each.

Related to the last point, many large climate change groups, like Greenpeace or Extinction Rebellion, protest at airports because they present very visible and media-friendly locations for

any activity. Their ultimate target, however, is generally either airlines or the operators of private jets, not the airport itself.

Messaging in the Narrative should prove helpful for both commercial and GA airports; GA airports are the likely targets for protests against private aviation and are also seeing SAF implemented first in their sector of the industry.

Consolidated information regarding the industry’s efforts in carbon reduction is especially helpful for GA airports that are not associated with commercial service airports through a common airport sponsor. These airports often do not have the financing or infrastructure to apply for LEED or ACA certifications for their own property and can instead speak to the broader impacts the industry is making.

Findings from Individual Airports

Following are summaries of the 12 airport case studies.

Amsterdam Schiphol Airport (AMS) would be classified as a large hub by the FAA and is the hub for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines; it connects the Netherlands to 300 destinations worldwide.

The airport sees climate protesters turn up several times a year. It is, therefore, well-versed in dealing with climate change and aviation issues. These activists use the airport as a media-friendly protest point, even though they are targeting the airlines. Airport-specific sustainability initiatives largely do not resonate with climate change groups; their sole focus is on airline emissions. The airport no longer uses economic benefits in its sustainability communications, as within a Dutch and wider-European context, climate change issues are now seen as more important than narrow economic ones.

AMS is owned and operated by Royal Schiphol Group, a Dutch airport company. Royal Schiphol Group is a fully owned subsidiary of the Dutch State. The Group has a strong focus on sustainability. It has set the ambitious goal of operating the world’s most sustainable airports by 2030. To achieve this goal, Royal Schiphol Group is taking several measures, including

• Investing in renewable energy, such as solar and wind power;
• Reducing energy consumption through energy efficiency measures;
• Using sustainable materials in construction and renovation projects;
• Reducing waste and promoting recycling; and
• Working with airlines and other partners to reduce aircraft emissions.

The airport has asserted authority to limit operations (which U.S. airports do not) including:

1. New rules with clear limits for noise and CO₂ emissions;
2. Noisiest aircraft will be banned;
3. No take-offs between 00:00 and 06:00, no landings between 00:00 and 05:00;
4. No more private jets and small business aviation at AMS;
5. No additional runways; and
6. Annual investment of 10 million euros in the local environment and residents.

AMS’s communications strategy is focused on sustainability objectives to a significant extent, given that this is such a critical issue in the Netherlands as a whole. As a result, the airport has a dedicated sustainability section on its website. AMS also produces a sustainability report each year, which provides a comprehensive overview of its sustainability performance.

The East Coast Large Hub (ECLH), which wished to remain anonymous, is classified as a large-hub airport by the FAA and serves as a focus city for a major carrier. The airport serves the metropolitan area with both domestic and international services. A government owns and operates the airport (along with a GA airport outside of the city), sets the policy objectives, and makes the major capital decisions regarding the airport. The majority of the population in the area believes climate change is having a detrimental effect, and the government has an active program to measure and report its progress on climate-related issues. The airport is in the middle of creating its own sustainability plan, which will set goals and measure progress toward reducing Scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Specific goals in the plan include

• Environmental stewardship,
• Economic growth,
• Social and community impact, and
• Human experience (travelers and employees).

The owner publishes an airport economic impact study that mentions sustainability as a goal but does not provide details on the link between economic progress and efforts to mitigate climate change. The airport generally agrees with the Narrative created in this work program. The airport’s communications on sustainability will expand once its sustainability plan is completed and the airport commits to goals, after which, it will report the progress it makes in the future.

Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) is classified as a large hub by the FAA and is only one of three North American airports to reach the highest level of the ACI’s ACA program. It has ambitious goals

to be Scopes 1 and 2 net zero by 2030 and to cut Scope 3 emissions by 50%. The airport’s CEO, Sean Donohue, very much takes a leadership role in sustainability communications, while DFW is also an example of an airport that runs economic and sustainability messaging in tandem. DFW is also an example of an airport that aligns its sustainability goals with the UN’s Sustainability Development Goals (UN SDG).

DFW is owned by the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas. Dallas has a 64% ownership share, while Fort Worth has a 36% ownership share.

DFW is committed to sustainability and is implementing several initiatives to achieve this goal, including

• Investing in renewable energy, such as solar and wind power;
• Electrifying its ground fleet;
• Improving energy efficiency in its buildings and operations; and
• Reducing waste and pollution.

DFW’s communications strategy is focused on sustainability objectives in a number of ways. The airport’s website, social media channels, and other communications materials regularly highlight its sustainability initiatives and progress. DFW also publishes an annual sustainability report, which provides a comprehensive overview of its sustainability performance and goals.

A Western Large Hub (WLH), which requested to remain anonymous, is classified as a large hub by the FAA and serves as a hub or focus city for multiple airlines with both domestic and international flights. Due to the community’s distance from other large cities, there are limited alternatives to flying for most intercity travel. The airport is owned and operated by the local government, with the CEO appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council; however, the airport does not operate with any city general fund dollars. The local population tends to be environmentally conscious, and the mayor has set goals around reducing GHG emissions and transitioning to renewable energy, which the airport supports. The airport’s communications strategy is to talk about environmental initiatives in conjunction with airport growth, but they are reluctant to focus on the economic benefits of aviation in response to climate concerns.

The airport acknowledges its responsibility to reduce its Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions and to work with other stakeholders to reduce Scope 3 emissions. The airport has focused on having a lower-emitting vehicle fleet and has won several “green fleet” awards. It also has multiple LEED-certified buildings, has installed more efficient lighting systems, improved HVAC efficiency, and installed solar panels on airport property with a production potential of over 50 gigawatt-hours per year as part of a growing program. The airport has transitioned away from oil and gas production on the airport and has recently capped all oil and gas wells on airport property. The airport’s environmental management system is certified to ISO 14001 standards.

The airport’s communication approach has revolved around transparency regarding airport activities and the emissions associated with them as well as accepting responsibility to reduce emissions where possible, noting that it is important that the community does not see the airport as greenwashing its communications. The airport tries to integrate the discussion of airport growth with environmental initiatives.

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) is classified as a large hub by the FAA and serves as a hub for American Airlines and a base for both Frontier Airlines and Southwest Airlines. The airport, which is the largest airport in the state of Arizona, serves Phoenix and the surrounding area with both domestic and international services. The City of Phoenix owns and operates the airport through the Phoenix Aviation Department. The local Phoenix community is heavily invested in climate change and the impact it has on the city. As a result, both the City of Phoenix and PHX have sustainability efforts as a top priority for their respective organizations. PHX has several sustainability-related goals, measures, and programs that they actively promote

and have a dedicated department focused on making them successful. The airport has obtained Level 4 ACA accreditation and is on a roadmap to net-zero carbon by 2040, 10 years ahead of the global 2050 industry goal. PHX is also aiming for a goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2030.

PHX is actively focused on communicating its sustainability efforts—such as the airport’s accreditation level, future net-zero goals, renewable energy technology, air quality initiatives, waste and recycling opportunities, and water conservation efforts—and actively communicating through outreach plans to as many people as possible. The airport believes in taking an active approach to addressing sustainability, so it never has to pivot to being reactive.

San Francisco International Airport (SFO), classified as a large hub by the FAA, began publishing its sustainability goals and achievements as early as 2008. Having achieved Level 4 ACA from ACI EUROPE, a first for large-hub airports in North America, the airport is committed to reaching net-zero emissions by the year 2030. SFO includes its airlines, concessionaires, fuel service providers, and other partners to achieve its sustainability goals. Having reached close to 100% plastic-free food accessories and beverage containers for retail and food and beverage tenants, the airport is now demonstrating its leadership in the alternative fuels space by having supported airline use of 7.1 million gallons of SAF in 2022 and continuing to advocate for SAF incentives in California. Feedback from SFO’s generally sophisticated and technical passengers is mostly positive, with the ask for the airport to be more accountable in justifying the benefits the airport is claiming relative to their sustainability programs.

The airport is owned and operated by the City of San Francisco. The city is pursuing its own sustainability initiatives and goals, reflecting the Bay Area community, which is highly engaged in environmental and sustainability matters.

SFO reports annually on its measured levels of Scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions. To further reduce Scope 1 emissions, SFO plans to electrify its buildings, use alternative fuels for heavy equipment, and use low-emission refrigerants in its operations. For Scope 2 emissions, the airport uses on-site renewable energy generation (solar) and purchases renewable energy from off-site sources resulting in zero emissions. For Scope 3, SFO is leading the world’s largest initiative to develop and deploy SAF at an airport and currently receives the highest volume of SAF of any airport worldwide.

Southwest Florida International Airport (RSW) is classified as a medium hub by the FAA. The airport is owned by the Lee County Port Authority (Ft. Myers, Florida) and is governed by the county commissioners who sit on its Board. The Authority runs both RSW and Page Field (a GA airport) as well as airport noise mitigation lands. RSW is primarily an origin-destination airport with a significant peak in activity during the winter and early spring months when the area’s population swells with tourists and snowbirds. The local community has not expressed significant interest in airport sustainability. As a result, the airport does not measure or set emissions objectives for Scopes 1, 2, or 3. There is very little communication with the community on this topic. The airport does pursue sustainability investments when they make economic sense. It expects tenants to follow this same policy.

Eugene Airport (EUG) is classified as a small hub airport by the FAA and is located in Western Oregon. Despite its location in and service to a relatively active environmental community, EUG has not yet experienced climate change protests on its campus. The focus is to meet current and future demand for air travel and to minimize the local passenger leakage to Portland International Airport (PDX) (located 2 hours and 30 minutes north), which would lessen cars on the road and reduce emissions. EUG’s communications are issues driven. All current and future projects include a sustainability pillar to reduce GHG emissions, including a future terminal expansion and other current and future capital improvements.

London City Airport (LCY) is owned by a consortium of investors and is the only London airport to be located within London; residential neighborhoods surround the airport. Its passenger

traffic would classify it as a small hub airport by FAA’s metrics. It has a short runway, meaning that only aircraft of the size of the Embraer E-190 or Airbus A220 (or smaller) can land there. The airport is faced with active community groups lobbying against any further airport expansion and any loosening restrictions that prevent aircraft from taking off from midday Saturday to midday Sunday. LCY has an active sustainability strategy, which includes publishing annual reports with targets. It has set the following commitments to Scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions:

• Scope 1: Net zero by 2050,
• Scope 2: Net zero by 2050,
• Scope 3: Reduce by 50% by 2030.

The airport’s communications strategy is focused on the following key messages.

• The airport is committed to sustainability and is working to reduce its environmental impact.
• The airport is investing in renewable energy, electrifying its ground fleet, and improving energy efficiency.
• The airport is working with airlines and other stakeholders to reduce air travel emissions.
• The airport is a member of the ACA program and has achieved the highest level of accreditation.

Laredo International Airport (LRD) is located in South Texas near the U.S.–Mexico border and is classified as a nonhub airport by the FAA. The airport has scheduled passenger service from three airlines as well as significant amounts of cargo, GA, and military traffic. LRD is approximately 165 miles from San Antonio International Airport (SAT), and many travelers to and from the Laredo area drive to SAT or Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS). The City of Laredo owns and operates the airport as a City department, and the airport is part of the City’s budget. The local population has not expressed much concern about climate change but is concerned about water quality and air quality (not specific to LRD). The airport and City have not focused on communications around sustainability and have not set specific goals related to reducing climate impacts. LRD staff generally agree with the Narrative created in this work program but suggested that more graphics/video material would be helpful in communicating to the public.

The airport has not set specific climate goals at this time. However, in the course of airport renovation projects, LRD is installing LED lighting, a more modern and efficient HVAC system, and other improvements that make financial sense and are better for the environment. LRD has been looking into solar and other forms of renewable energy, but funding is a constraint. The airport has not yet pursued FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants around sustainability initiatives but may look into it.

San Luis Obispo (SLO) County Regional Airport (SBP) is a small nonhub airport in central California. SBP is owned and operated by SLO County. Airport leadership has worked for the past 3 years to make sustainability a priority, including applying for ACA certification, budgeting sustainable projects in its strategic business plan, and partnering with the local university to find ways to expand its programs.

The county’s GA airport, L52, has been a recent target for a local group that would like to repurpose the airport property for low-income housing. SBP has been a central focus in the county as it develops a plan to clean up perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). SBP staff will continue to prioritize sustainability in their communications with the region as they promote the actions the airport is undertaking to protect the community’s quality of life.

The airport is focused on reducing emissions, adding solar power, increasing natural ventilation in the terminal, and transitioning to an electric fleet of vehicles. It has applied for but has not yet received an ACA accreditation. It has developed a Carbon Management Plan and a corollary Carbon Management Commitment. SBP plans to report annually on its sustainable efforts and will update its Carbon Management Plan in 2026.

Heber Valley Airport (HCR) in Heber City, Utah, is part of a rapidly growing area of the state, and this GA airport reflects that growth. As housing prices rise in Utah’s Wasatch County, so does the number of jets flying into HCR. The airport and its city sponsor completed an airport master plan update in 2023 and had to address issues including noise, lead, overflight and safety, and the general feeling that only the “1 percenters” ever use the airport or benefit from it. (The airport is a gateway to the resort community of Park City.) Additionally, as more new residents arrive from California and other West Coast states, sustainable initiatives will become increasingly important for the region. While more traditional sustainable initiatives like recycling or solar power are not in question, the airport has dealt directly with the idea of passenger shaming and the necessity of keeping open an airport that is perceived as not serving the whole community. Messages like those shared in the draft Narrative help explain the airport’s value and the efforts the entire industry is making to reduce its carbon footprint.