129 - Landscape of The FBO Industry in 2022

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.
org/27295
Landscape of the FBO Industry in 2022

(2023)
DETAILS
82 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK
ISBN 978-0-309-70915-6 | DOI 10.17226/27295
CONTRIBUTORS
Lois Kramer; Airport Cooperative Research Program; Transportation Research
Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
BUY THIS BOOK
FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Landscape of
the FBO Industry in 2022. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/27295.
Visit the National Academies Press at nap.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of publications
– 10% off the price of print publications
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts
All downloadable National Academies titles are free to be used for personal and/or non-commercial
academic use. Users may also freely post links to our titles on this website; non-commercial academic
users are encouraged to link to the version on this website rather than distribute a downloaded PDF
to ensure that all users are accessing the latest authoritative version of the work. All other uses require
written permission. (Request Permission)
This PDF is protected by copyright and owned by the National Academy of Sciences; unless otherwise
indicated, the National Academy of Sciences retains copyright to all materials in this PDF with all rights
reserved.
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ACRP SYNTHESIS 129

A Synthesis of Airport Practice
Lois Kramer
KRAMER aerotek, inc.
Boulder, CO
Subscriber Categories
Aviation
Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration
2023
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP SYNTHESIS 129
Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in transpor- Project 11-03, Topic S01-26
tation of people and goods and in regional, national, and international ISSN 1935-9187
commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation system connects with ISBN 978-0-309-70915-6
other modes of transportation and where federal responsibility for man- Library of Congress Control Number 2023946659
aging and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of state
© 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of
and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research is
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trade-
necessary to solve common operating problems, to adapt appropriate new
marks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the
airport industry. The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP)
serves as one of the principal means by which the airport industry can
develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study spon- written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
sored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). ACRP carries out published or copyrighted material used herein.
applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating agen- Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
cies and not being adequately addressed by existing federal research pro- publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
grams. ACRP is modeled after the successful National Cooperative High- understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, APTA, FAA,
way Research Program (NCHRP) and Transit Cooperative Research FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice.
It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and
Program (TCRP). ACRP undertakes research and other technical activi- not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or
ties in various airport subject areas, including design, construction, legal, reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
maintenance, operations, safety, policy, planning, human resources, and
administration. ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can Cover photo credit: iStock.com/lindenblade
cooperatively address common operational problems.
ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision 100—
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary participants in NOTICE
the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP Oversight
The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to
Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
Transportation with representation from airport operating agencies, other by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations such as the Airports
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
Council International-North America (ACI-NA), the American Asso- researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transporta-
ciation of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State tion Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or
Aviation Officials (NASAO), Airlines for America (A4A), and the Airport the program sponsors.
Consultants Council (ACC) as vital links to the airport community; (2) The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or spec-
TRB as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) ifications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which
the FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board
with the National Academy of Sciences formally initiating the program. sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices,
procedures, or specifications.
ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport
professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials, The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research organi- Medicine; and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse
products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names or logos appear herein solely
zations. Each of these participants has different interests and responsibili- because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
ties, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort.
Research problem statements for ACRP are solicited periodically but
may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility
of the AOC to formulate the research program by identifying the highest
priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products.
Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel
appointed by TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and
research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport
professionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels
prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors,
and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the
project. The process for developing research problem statements and Published reports of the
selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing coop-
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
erative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP
project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. are available from
Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the Transportation Research Board
intended users of the research: airport operating agencies, service pro- Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
viders, and academic institutions. ACRP produces a series of research Washington, DC 20001
reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other
interested parties; industry associations may arrange for workshops, and can be ordered through the Internet by going to
training aids, field visits, webinars, and other activities to ensure that https://www.mytrb.org/MyTRB/Store/default.aspx
results are implemented by airport industry practitioners. Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through
trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The
Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from
the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by
state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR ACRP SYNTHESIS 129

Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Marci A. Greenberger, Manager, Airport Cooperative Research Program
Jordan Christensen, Senior Program Officer
Demisha Williams, Senior Program Assistant
Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications
Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications
ACRP PROJECT 11-03 PANEL

Joshua D. Abramson, Barge Design Solutions, Inc., Nashville, TN (Chair)
Gloria G. Bender, TransSolutions, LLC, Fort Worth, TX
David A. Byers, Quadrex Aviation LLC, Melbourne, FL
Traci Clark, Allegheny County (PA) Airport Authority, West Mifflin, PA
Brenda L. Enos, TRC, Boston, MA
Cameron Thompson, Birmingham Airport Authority, Birmingham, AL
Keila Walker-Denis, Orlando International Airport, Orlando, FL
Scott Wintner, San Jose Norman Y. Mineta International Airport, San Jose, CA
Patrick Magnotta, FAA Liaison
Liying Gu, Airports Council International–North America Liaison
Christine L. Gerencher, TRB Liaison
TOPIC S01-26 PANEL

Courtney Beamon, Delta Airport Consultants, Inc., Midlothian, VA
Shelly Lesikar deZevallos, West Houston Airport, Houston, TX
Mary Miller, Signature Flight Support, Washington, DC
Chris Rozansky, City of Naples Airport Authority, Naples, FL
Gary Edward Schmidt, Lakeville, MN
Molly Fierro, FAA Liaison
Paul James Eubanks, Airports Council International–North America Liaison

ABOUT THE ACRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM

Airport administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information
already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This infor-
mation may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has
been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings
may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to
recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to the airport industry. Much of it derives
from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-to-day work. To
provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information and to make it
available to the entire airport community, the Airport Cooperative Research Program authorized the
Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing project. This project, ACRP Project 11-03,
“Synthesis of Information Related to Airport Practices,” searches out and synthesizes useful knowl-
edge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports
from this endeavor constitute an ACRP report series, Synthesis of Airport Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the
detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides
a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful
in resolving specific problems.
FOREWORD
By Jordan Christensen
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
ACRP Synthesis 108: Characteristics of the FBO Industry 2018–2019 provided a quantitative snap-
shot of the fixed-based operator (FBO) industry and established a baseline of useful metrics to track
FBO trends. Much has happened to the aviation industry since the report was published, includ-
ing the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected business and personal flying. This synthesis provides
information on how general aviation functioned during the pandemic and how FBOs met pandemic
challenges. The objective of this study was to follow up ACRP Synthesis 108 by examining selected
recent and current trends in the aviation industry and their impacts on FBOs at National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) airports. Information used in this study was obtained through
a literature review and survey of FBOs, which can be found in Chapter 4.
Lois Kramer, KRAMER aerotek, inc., Boulder, CO, synthesized the information and wrote the
report. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on page iv. This synthesis is an immedi-
ately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the
knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues,
new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.

AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Curt Castagna, Aeroplex, National Air Transportation Association (NATA)
Peter Truszkowski, AIrPlx
Justin Barkowski, American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE)
Megan Eisenstein, Jake Legere, Shannon Chambers (NATA)
Alex Gertsen, National Business Aviation Association (NBAA)
Mickey Hines, Virginia Highlands Airport (VJI)
Keith Holt, Virginia Tech/Montgomery Executive Airport (BCB)
Scott MacMahon, DM Airports, Ltd., Operators of Morristown Airport (MMU)

CONTENTS
1 Summary
4 Chapter 1 Introduction
8 Chapter 2 Recent Trends in Aviation and the U.S. Economy
8 Quick Takes
8 COVID-19 Impacts on Aviation Activity
11 Pandemic Impacts on Different Categories of Airports
13 Local Factors Heavily Influenced Pandemic Impacts and Outcomes
16 Boom in Private Jet or Turboprop Aviation
18 Mixed Signals for the Economy—Direction Still Unfolding
24 FAA Aerospace Forecasts
26 Wrap-Up on Aviation Trends
28 Chapter 3 Current Landscape for U.S. FBOs
28 Quick Takes
28 Observed Changes in FBO Ownership and Facilities Since 2018
35 Enduring COVID-19 Impacts Affecting FBOs
37 Ongoing FBO Challenges
43 Looking Ahead
48 Wrap-Up on FBO Trends
49 Chapter 4 FBO Survey Results
49 Quick Takes
49 Introduction
50 Survey Demographics
50 Fuel Sales
53 Other FBO Services
53 Customer Mix
54 Outlook for the Remainder of 2022
55 Near-Term Challenges
55 Challenges in the Next Five Years
56 Timeline for Electric Aircraft
57 Wrap-Up on the FBO Survey
58 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Future Updates
60 Appendix A FBO Survey
69 Appendix B References and Bibliography
73 Appendix C Abbreviations
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at nap.nationalacademies.org) retains the color versions.


SUMMARY
Landscape of the FBO Industry

in 2022
In 2020, the Transportation Research Board published ACRP Synthesis 108: Characteristics
of the FBO Industry 2018–2019 (Kramer, 2020), which described the characteristics of the
fixed-base operator (FBO) industry using data collected in 2018 and 2019. The objective of
that work was to establish a baseline and framework to profile and track the industry as it
evolves. ACRP Synthesis 108 analyzed publicly owned and private FBOs operating in the
United States at public-use airports, the prevalence of multiple FBOs at airports in the United
States, and the types of services offered to different segments of the general aviation market.
The objectives of this follow-up report on the FBO industry were to investigate how gen-
eral aviation fared during the pandemic and how FBOs, as the principal service agents for the
industry, met pandemic challenges and addressed changes that predated COVID-19. These
changes include continued FBO consolidation, a low-interest-rate market (until 2022) that
supported both the aircraft and real estate markets, evolving technologies for alternate fuels
and electrification, and environmental issues concerning fire suppression systems in hangars
and the use of leaded aviation fuels.
To address an expansive scope of issues, the synthesis methodology involved an extensive
review of the digital record about FBOs. This included investigating FBO and airport websites,
journal articles, and industry websites and webinars [webinars were hosted by the National
Air Transportation Association (NATA), American Association of Airport Executives, Air-
craft Owners and Pilots Association, Airports Council International–North America, and the
General Aviation Manufacturers Association]. These references are listed in Appendix B. In
addition, the synthesis included an online survey distributed to more than 700 FBOs and
follow-up telephone calls and examination.
This synthesis is organized into five chapters and three appendices:
• Chapter 1 provides an overview of the project.
• Chapter 2 examines what happened to general aviation and the economy during the
pandemic.
• Chapter 3 discusses how different segments of the FBO industry responded to new demands
and protocols brought on by the pandemic.
• Chapter 4 reviews the findings of the online survey.
• Chapter 5 offers concluding thoughts and next steps in the ongoing effort to keep track of
this vital component of aviation.
• Appendix A presents the questions asked in the online survey.
• Appendix B is the bibliography and references.
• Appendix C is a list of abbreviations.
The major findings and conclusions of the study are highlighted in the following pages.

2 Landscape of the FBO Industry in 2022
The FBO industry remains a diverse group of enterprises that have vastly different char-
acteristics, business models, and customers. For the most part, all FBOs provide fueling and
aircraft services, parking, hangars, and customer care. That is where the similarities end.
The authors of ACRP Synthesis 108 divided the universe of FBOs into groups primarily by
ownership and number of locations. There is a third relevant dimension that became espe-
cially important during the COVID-19 pandemic: mix of customers and aircraft—in other
words, the FBO’s market.
COVID-19 accomplished the unexpected: during the initial shutdown, demand for com-
mercial passenger flights slowed to a trickle. Certain segments of the general aviation market
prospered during the pandemic—most notably, private aviation, pilot training, and air-reliant
companies. Private aircraft were able to offer a more controlled and a more controlled cabin
space and provide access to airports with limited commercial air service. Pilot training con-
tinued as an essential service throughout the pandemic. Prospective pilots were in demand,
and in the early stages of lockdown, urban air space was uncongested with commercial
aircraft. Airports that supported air-reliant businesses such as hospitals, banks, construction
companies, grocery store chains, and manufacturing plants—which need just-in-time deliv-
eries of parts and personnel or medical airlift—also experienced continuous demand. To a
large extent, local economic activity determined the impacts of COVID-19 on specific air-
ports and their FBOs.
In many ways, the pandemic created the perfect opportunity for the largest FBO chains
with multiple locations in the United States or Canada, or locations at international air-
ports. The aviation industry was shut down. There was widespread apprehension about the
future. Leisure FBO markets offered expansion opportunities, and the largest existing urban
markets were either not affected by COVID-19 or likely to recover from the pandemic.
Today, most of the large chains are owned by private equity firms and infrastructure funds
whose main strategy for FBOs is to build and operate networks of FBOs that complement
each other and offer economies of scale. The pandemic was the perfect storm that resulted
in the third wave of mergers and acquisitions documented in this synthesis (See Chapter 3).
COVID-19 focused attention on new FBO markets. Stay-at-home orders and home-
schooling made it possible for some to work remotely from any location. In late 2020,
demand for second homes doubled from the previous year, helped by historically low mort-
gage interest rates and the fact that destination locations in the United States were accessible
during the pandemic (Strum, 2020). Vacation spots—such as Aspen, Colorado; Cape Cod,
Massachusetts; Coeur d’Alene, Idaho; Jackson Hole, Wyoming; Lake Tahoe, California;
Naples, Florida; and Palm Springs, California—experienced high population growth. The
flow of new visitors and residents to these locations markedly raised the level of airport
activity and contributed to increased costs for housing. There was also an uptick in invest-
ments in and acquisitions of FBOs in these vacation spots where second home purchases
translated into increased demand for private aviation. This phenomenon was present at
both public and private FBOs. Publicly owned FBOs experienced the same swell of activity
as private FBOs, provided they were in the right community. Because of the degree of new
investment in hangars and FBO facilities in these towns, FBO owners are hoping and count-
ing on second home locations becoming frequent or full-time residences.
Not all airports benefited from this boom of activity. For example, Teterboro Airport
(TEB), 12 miles from Midtown Manhattan and one of the largest business aviation air-
ports in the country, experienced a 50% decline in operations during 2020, followed by
partial recovery in subsequent years. Other general aviation airports had mixed experiences,
heavily influenced by local business travel patterns during the pandemic. Survey responses

Summary 3
from public and private FBOs reported a common set of immediate operating challenges
in ranked order:
• Rising prices and wages
• Hiring and retaining staff
• Diminishing fuel margins
• Availability of hangars
Surveyed FBOs were also concerned about future funding for new and updated FBO
facilities and near-term integration of sustainable fuels. Electrification was viewed as more
than five years away, but FBO operators are interested in how they might participate in
advanced air mobility.
This synthesis collected readily available information and as a consequence focused on
larger airports, where data were more readily available. The synthesis also identifies addi-
tional questions for further inquiry:
• Will remaining independent private FBOs be acquired by the larger chains in what seems
to be an ongoing consolidation of good locations and smaller-network FBOs?
• What is the trajectory of growth for private aviation going forward? Was this growth a
COVID-19 phenomenon or a long-term trend? Will first-time users of jet cards and
charters stick with private aviation or migrate back to commercial aviation?
• How will the next stages of consolidation develop? Will current private equity firms sell
their investments to new owners? Will FBOs become integrated with charter and frac-
tional operators; fuel suppliers; maintenance, repair, and overhaul service providers; or
even with the commercial airlines that want to offer a private aviation service to some of
their customers?
• Will Department of Transportation–authorized public charter operators (14 CFR 380)
that resell individual seats on private aircraft continue to expand scheduled public charter
service?
• Is advanced air mobility going to happen? What role will FBOs play in servicing this
new technology, obtaining sufficient electricity capacity, and monetizing new required
services for these aircraft?
For independent private FBOs and public FBOs that did not participate in the wave of
COVID-related growth, long-standing issues remain:
• How will they fund improvements to FBO facilities—including upgraded terminals, new
hangars, ramp space, and ground support equipment—to service newer and larger private
aircraft in use?
• Will it be possible to make a profit on fuel sales if margins continue to be squeezed? What
scale of operation would allow fuel sales alone to be economically viable, especially as
newer aircraft become more fuel efficient?
• Is it time to rethink rates and charging structures so that FBOs can recover rising operat-
ing costs, monetize the use of electricity for recharging, and adequately replace revenues
lost from fuel flowage fees?
The chapters that follow provide an update on the economy, aviation activity, and what
happened to the FBOs during the pandemic. Special thanks to the industry experts who pro-
vided their perspective, excellent feedback, and ideas.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The term “fixed-base operator,” or FBO, is defined by the FAA as “a business granted the right
by the airport sponsor to operate on an airport and provide aeronautical services” (FAA, 2009).
The most basic FBO offers its customers self-service fueling. More typically, an FBO offers a set
of core services, such as a pilot and passenger terminal, fuel supplies, use of hangars, ground ser-
vices, and sometimes aircraft maintenance. The services offered vary because FBOs may cater to
small general aviation aircraft, business aviation, commercial airlines, cargo operators, military
flights, medical airlift, and often a combination of clientele.
In 2020, TRB published ACRP Synthesis 108, which was a comprehensive attempt to orga-
nize and study the U.S. FBO industry—its ownership patterns, prevalence at U.S. airports, and
services offered. ACRP Synthesis 108 was an analytic effort based on three datasets: the FAA’s
database of 5010-1, Airport Master Records; the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
(NPIAS); and a dataset published by AirNav. As a starting point, in 2018 there were
• 5,092 public-use airports in the United States.
• 3,661 FBOs located at those airports.
• 2,934 airports with one FBO.
• 727 airports with multiple FBOs.
The history behind the term “fixed-base operator” is interesting. Toward the
end of World War I, in 1918, civil aviation was virtually unregulated and mostly
made up of “barnstormers,” or transient pilots operating military surplus aircraft.
Flying from city to city and landing in farmers’ fields, pilots set up temporary
camps where they would offer airplane rides and flight lessons. With pressure
from the Air Commerce Act of 1926—which resulted in licensing of pilots, aircraft
maintenance requirements, and training standards—the pilots and mechanics
making a living on the road started to develop permanent businesses, which
were quickly termed “fixed-base operators,” or FBOs.
Today, pilots depend on FBOs to provide amenities such as special catering requests,
coffee, rental cars, and of course fuel for aircraft. Some FBOs are members of
chains, and others are owned independently. The quality of the FBO plays a major
role in daily operations of private aircraft.
Adapted from Desert Jet, 2012

Introduction 5
Most of the FBOs (57%) were privately owned; the rest were owned by airport sponsors,
including municipalities, counties, Native American tribes, and airport authorities. A few FBOs
were owned by colleges and universities. ACRP Synthesis 108 also examined the trends shaping
the FBO industry in 2018. Many of these trends have continued to develop during the past four
years; some accelerated because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Other new developments emerged.
March 2020 marked the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, which
affected every aspect of life. Pandemic impacts proved uneven. Commercial aviation and the
hospitality industry came to a virtual standstill as nations and individuals evaluated the best
way forward. After the shutdown, a cautious and optimistic recovery commenced in different
aviation segments. However, waves of new COVID variants continued to cause palpable distur-
bances in the recovery. This synthesis examines trends in general aviation and explores how the
pandemic affected the consumption of private air travel and the outlook for sustained changes in
aviation and FBOs. As fundamentally relationship-based service businesses, FBOs are an excel-
lent bellwether to explore shifts in customer preferences, sustainability practices, adoption of
new technologies, and demand for private aircraft.
In 2022, the FBO industry remains large and diverse, reflecting a broad spectrum of general
aviation (GA) users and many different private companies and public entities that support air-
craft and customers. Since the largest FBO chains and most independent or small-network FBOs
are privately held companies, industry-wide analysis is elusive as much information remains
with the private sector.
There are comprehensive data on the demand side for aircraft sales and for GA operations,
collected by the FAA’s Air Traffic Activity System. The bias here is toward larger aircraft and
airports with air traffic control towers. There is less organized information about small non-
towered GA airports. As noted in ACRP Synthesis 108, location-specific FBO information
is largely self-reported on websites and listings in aviation databases published by AirNav,
AC-U-KWIK, FlightAware, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and various electronic
applications (which may be directed at pilots, flight departments, and schedulers and dispatch-
ers). Self-reporting occurs primarily when an FBO operator is advertising fuel prices or aircraft,
pilot, and passenger services. These listings are marketing efforts to retain and attract customers.
For this reason, FBO directories and databases must be used with appreciation for the intended
audiences and objectives of each data source.
Putting together an updated picture of the FBO landscape involved original study and the use
of multiple sources of information, as shown in Figure 1.
This snapshot of the FBO industry includes discussions about the following:
• Pandemic impacts on general aviation, including major shifts in how air travel was consumed
during the most intense periods of COVID-19 lockdowns, a tight used aircraft market, growth
of public charter operators reselling seats on private aircraft, and expansions into destination
markets in favor of business centers.
• Uneven recovery patterns at urban airports and small airports.
• Durable changes in workforce location, size, and utilization.
• More-comprehensive airport lease requirements for capital improvements and minimum
standards.
• Consolidation of FBO operators and the use of private equity to finance high-valuation mergers
and acquisitions.
• Greater reliance on real estate revenues rather than traditional FBO services such as fueling,
de-icing, line services, and concierge services.

Online FBO
Literature Search Survey
Interviews
Synthesis
Source: Adapted from Wikimedia Commons, the free media

repository, User Amanda 44 (2022).
Figure 1. Study process.
• Increased hangar demand to accommodate today’s aircraft, financing challenges for hangar
development, and fire safety requirements for larger hangars.
• Observable progress in the availability of unleaded Avgas and sustainable aviation fuel.
• Excitement and uncertainty about electrification of aircraft and the use of urban air mobility,
advanced air mobility (AAM), and vertical takeoff and landing aircraft.
• Crossover programs by airlines to participate in private aviation and AAM.
• Community engagement in climate action to reduce airport carbon footprints and noise.
• Funding needs and rate-setting trends for airport-owned FBOs.
• Enduring volatility, risk management, and post-pandemic changes in demand for private avia-
tion, FBO consolidation, labor, and services.
The report is organized into multiple chapters, as shown in Figure 2. Chapter 2 provides a
discussion of how COVID-19 affected private aviation, including business and personal travel.
Chapter 3 provides an overview of how the FBO industry has changed since ACRP Synthesis 108
was published. Chapter 4 describes an online survey prepared and distributed to more than
700 FBOs and reports on the survey findings. Chapter 5 presents synthesis conclusions and
a discussion for future updates once aviation activity and the economy have stabilized. Last,
the appendices provide a bibliography and references, a copy of the online survey, and a list of
abbreviations.
Readers looking for a basic introduction to the FBO industry are encouraged to read ACRP
Synthesis 108.
While many articles have been written about the FBO industry, there is little published
research. ACRP has published many research and synthesis reports that complement this study.
Table 1 lists those relevant reports.

Introduction 7
Aviation and FBO Research and

Overview Appendices
Trends Findings
Trends in Online Survey

Summary Private Results Survey Tool
Aviation and
the Economy
Bibliography
Introduction Landscape of Conclusions and
the FBO References
Industry
Future
Research and Abbreviations
Ongoing FBO Updates
Challenges
Looking Ahead
at FBO
Opportunities
Figure 2. Report organization.
Table 1. Related ACRP publications.
Publication
Project/Report Number Date Report Title
ACRP Legal Research Digest 8 2009 The Right to Self-Fuel
ACRP Legal Research Digest 11 2011 Survey of Minimum Standards: Commercial Aeronautical Activities at Airports
ACRP Report 47 2011 Guidebook for Developing and Leasing Airport Property
ACRP Report 60 2012 Guidelines for Integrating Alternative Jet Fuel into the Airport Setting
ACRP Report 77 2012 Guidebook for Developing General Aviation Airport Business Plans
ACRP Synthesis 63 2015 Overview of Airport Fueling Operations
ACRP Legal Research Digest 28 2016 Operational and Legal Issues with Fuel Farms
ACRP Research Report 165 2016 Tracking Alternative Jet Fuel
ACRP Web-Only Document 28 2016 Identifying and Evaluating Airport Workforce Requirements
ACRP Research Report 172 2017 Guidebook for Considering Life-Cycle Costs in Airport Asset Procurement
ACRP Synthesis 86 2018 Airport Operator Options for Delivery of FBO Services
ACRP Synthesis 89 2018 Clean Vehicles, Fuels, and Practices for Airport Private Ground Transportation Providers
ACRP Legal Research Digest 37 2019 Legal Issues Relating to Airports Promoting Competition
ACRP Research Report 192 2019 Airport Management Guide for Providing Aircraft Fueling Services
ACRP Synthesis 94 2019 Attracting Investment at General Aviation Airports through Public–Private Partnerships
ACRP Synthesis 97 2019 How Airports Plan for Changing Aircraft Capacity: The Effects of Upgauging
ACRP Synthesis 104 2019 Current Landscape of Unmanned Aircraft Systems at Airports
ACRP Synthesis 108 2020 Characteristics of the FBO Industry, 2018–2019
ACRP Synthesis 113 2020 Airport Workforce Programs Supporting Employee Well-Being
ACRP Research Report 213 2020 Estimating Market Value and Establishing Market Rent at Small Airports
ACRP Research Report 228 2021 Airport Microgrid Implementation Toolkit
ACRP Research Report 236 2022 Preparing Your Airport for Electric Aircraft and Hydrogen Technologies
ACRP Synthesis 130 2023 Airport Centric Advanced Air Mobility Market Study
ACRP Project 03-71 [Anticipated] 2024 Guidelines for Planning for Future Electric Vehicle Growth at Airports
ACRP Project 3-73 [Anticipated] 2024 Airport Guide for Transitioning to Unleaded Aviation Gasoline

CHAPTER 2
Recent Trends in Aviation

and the U.S. Economy
Quick Takes
The following bullet points summarize recent economic trends in the aviation industry.
• Leisure markets were the first to rebound from the COVID-19 shutdown of commercial
aviation. By early 2023, international and business travel segments had not yet returned to
2019 levels.
• The substitution of private aircraft for commercial air travel led to a mini-boom in used air-
craft acquisitions and sales of individual seats on charters.
• From an airport perspective, the pandemic experience was uneven. Destination markets in
the United States, pilot training centers, and airports that supported air-reliant industries
experienced intensified aircraft activity. Other airports languished where pandemic closures
reduced air demand.
• All segments of the aviation industry are recovering, but labor shortages, rising costs, and
continued perceived economic risk are adding challenges to a smooth recovery.
COVID-19 Impacts on Aviation Activity

Any discussion of recent trends in private aviation and the FBOs that serve this segment must
first be framed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had an outsized impact on the
aviation, hospitality, and tourism industries. The United States lost 22 million jobs and associ-
ated income (Leeds School of Business, 2022). By June 2022, more than 1 million people in the
United States had lost their lives to COVID-19. The federal government responded with three
relief packages totaling $3.5 trillion to inject liquidity into households and businesses. Airports
and airlines, as essential businesses, were among the recipients of COVID-19 relief grants.
Unlike the Great Recession of 2008, whose recovery took several years to accomplish, COVID-19
closed the global economy suddenly and it incrementally opened back up in short order. By
December 2021, 84% of jobs in the United States had been recovered or replaced. This nonstop
recovery has created surprising complications and imbalances in the global economy, especially
in supply chain efficiencies and transport, workforce shortages, and high volatility in fuel prices
and demand for air travel. How air travel is consumed is still influenced by the ongoing COVID-19
recovery; hybrid models of employment, which offer a combination of remote and in-office
work; and supply-side variability that has affected the labor market, parts supply, and availability
of aircraft.
Not all segments of aviation were equally affected by the pandemic. Figure 3 tracks how air
carrier, air taxi, and GA operations in the United States compared to operations in the same
month in 2019. Following shutdowns in March, April, and May of 2020, local and itinerant

Recent Trends in Aviation and the U.S. Economy 9
0.3
0.2
Local GA
0.1
Percent Change from Same Month 2019
-0.1
Itinerant GA
-0.2
-0.3
Air Taxi
-0.4
-0.5
Air Carrier
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
43831
43862
43891
43922
43952
43983
44013
44044
44075
44105
44136
44166
44197
44228
44256
44317
44348
44378
44409
44440
44470
44501
44531
44562
44593
44621
44652
44682
44713
44743
44774
44805
44287
Air Carrier Air Taxi Local GA

Source: Compiled from Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS), 2022, https://aspm.faa.gov/opsnet/sys/Airport.asp.
Figure 3. Variance in operations from same month in 2019.
GA operations recovered quickly and reached 2019 levels as early as fall 2020. Flight schools, as
an essential service, ramped up training programs. Some corporate travel on commercial flights
migrated to private aircraft. Air carrier and air taxi operations followed a much slower recovery
path, and as of September 2022, they remained nationally within 10%, but still below operations
in 2019.
The recovery of commercial aviation operations does not tell the whole story about how travel
was consumed during the pandemic. Demand patterns have changed. Whether these changes,
which include the following, are permanent remains to be determined:
• In 2021, leisure markets led the recovery. Travel demand resulted in increased domestic
trips. International destinations remained closed during the early days of the pandemic. U.S.
carriers increased frequencies in the spring and summer of 2021 to destinations in states such
as California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Massachusetts, and Montana.
• Some workers became able to work from home, reducing business travel. Online meetings
became a staple of the pandemic and remain in use to a lesser extent. Airlines reported that in
fall 2022 it appeared air passengers were combining personal and business trips and smooth-
ing out departure days throughout the week and on weekends. Holiday travel bookings also
appeared less concentrated on specific days.
• In 2020 and 2021, different COVID variants introduced continual fluctuations in travel demand.
As recovery progressed in 2022, a national desire to be finished with the pandemic encouraged
increased travel and relaxation of pandemic precautions.
• That said, commercial airlines in 2022 continued to experience operational challenges
involving workforce shortages, recertification of aircraft placed in storage, and supply chain

variabilities from aircraft manufacturers and original equipment manufacturers. Some small
airports that purchased fuel on the spot market reported difficulties with fuel supply because
of trucker shortages.
• Health concerns and airline operational challenges prompted some companies and individuals
to use private aircraft for the first time during the pandemic, resulting in new customers for
private aircraft, charters, and fractional operators. This new demand put pressure on the used
aircraft market and increased aircraft valuations. Low inventories of available airplanes for
sale continued throughout the pandemic and into 2023. In addition, demand for jet cards—
essentially a way to buy space on a private aircraft—was so strong that some operators at first
raised hourly rates by 30% from 2020 rates and then halted jet card sales altogether because
of insufficient capacity to satisfy demand. (Most operators resumed jet card sales in 2022.)
According to a survey done in August and September 2022 of 571 paid subscribers to the
Private Jet Card Comparisons service, 94% who started flying privately
since the beginning of the pandemic plan to continue using private avia-
tion. It is a small sample, but indicative of a potential shift for some busi-
No crisis in modern times has ness travelers.
shattered the aviation business • The loss of business travel for commercial airlines was consequential. Before
model as much as the coronavirus the pandemic, high-yielding premium passengers represented 9% of tickets
pandemic. That’s because no but more than half of an airline’s revenue (Stalnaker et al., 2021). To make up
previous crisis has undermined for lost high-margin revenue, airlines had to carry many more lower-yielding
corporate travel—a major profit passengers. Airlines remained under pressure into 2023 from ongoing flight
center of the airline industry— delays, cancellations, staff shortages, cutbacks in capacity, and crowded board-
as much as COVID-19. ing areas at airports.
• Substitution of private aviation for commercial flights may have hidden the
Stalnaker et al., 2021
true recovery of business travel. Business travel is typically tracked by book-
ings by corporate travel departments on commercial flights. Figure 4 shows
Comparison of Tickets Sold Using 2019 Baseline
20%
Leisure/Other
0%
Online
-20%
-40%
-60%
Corporate
-80%
-100%
May-22
Sep-22
May-21
Nov-21
Mar-22
Sep-21
Dec-21
Jan-22
Feb-22
Mar-22
May-22
Jan-21
Jan-21
Feb-21
Aug-21
Aug-21
Jan-22
Apr-22
Jun-22
Aug-22
Oct-22
Mar-21
Apr-21
Apr-21
Jun-21
Oct-21
Jun-21
Oct-21
Jul-22
Jul-22
Jul-21
Day of Week Ending
Corporate Travel Online Leisure/Other

Source: Compiled from Airline Reporting Corporation, 2022, https://www2.arccorp.com/.
Figure 4. Total number of commercial airline tickets (all itineraries) per week compared
with same period in 2019.

ticketing on commercial airlines. According to Airline Reporting Corporation data, tickets

issued on airlines by corporate travel departments were steadily improving in 2022 but remained
25% below 2019 levels. That said, some corporate travelers may have continued to use private
aircraft and would not be reflected in the Airline Reporting Corporation data.
Pandemic Impacts on Different Categories of Airports

At the macro level, airports of all sizes have demonstrated resilience as air travel recovers from
the pandemic. Table 2 and Figure 5 track total operations at different-sized airports with air traf-
fic control towers. The smallest airports, known as local and basic general aviation airports, are
not included in the figures, because most do not have a control tower and report traffic counts.
Table 3 shows the percent recovery of total operations using 2019 as a base equal to 100%.
Table 2. Total airport operations at airports with air traffic control towers,
calendar years 2019–2022.
2022
Average
Number of Annual
Airport Reporting Operations
Category 2019 2020 2021 2022 Airports per Airport
Large-Hub 13,259,167 7,961,302 10,484,970 11,215,519 30 373,851
Medium-Hub 6,196,548 4,237,158 5,324,773 5,858,674 36 162,741
Small-Hub 7,153,790 5,713,621 6,777,988 7,012,434 77 91,071
Non-hub 7,422,569 6,247,224 7,385,083 7,371,350 137 53,805
National 8,226,773 7,416,923 8,288,041 8,853,724 78 113,509
Regional 10,654,529 9,578,898 10,379,036 11,036,987 142 77,725
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
Total Operations
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
Large Hub Medium Small Hub Non-Hub National Regional
Hub
2019 2020 2021 2022

Figure 5. Total airport operations at airports with air traffic control towers,
calendar years 2019–2022.

Table 3. Percent recovery of total

aircraft operations from 2019.
Airport Categories 2019 2020 2021 2022

Large-Hub 100% 60% 79% 85%
Medium-Hub 100% 68% 86% 95%
Small-Hub 100% 80% 95% 98%
Non-hub 100% 84% 99% 99%
National 100% 90% 101% 108%
Regional 100% 90% 97% 104%
Source: Compiled from Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS),
2023, https://aspm.faa.gov/opsnet/sys/Airport.asp.
From the perspective of operations, all categories of airports except large and medium hubs
were close to 2019 levels by the end of 2022. National and regional general aviation airports
exceeded 2019 operations. That said, air carriers have made measurable changes to their active
fleet. The U.S. active passenger fleet declined by 4%, from 5,780 aircraft in 2019 to 5,575 aircraft
in 2022. As Figure 6 shows, air carriers have increased the number of narrowbody aircraft by
7% and decreased the active fleet of smaller-capacity regional aircraft. This upgauging of the
active fleet explains some reductions in total operations at medium and large hubs. Fewer regional
aircraft in the fleet also implies that feeder air service to small communities has continued to decline.
Other metrics for air carrier capacity and passenger activity support the thesis that as the worst
of the pandemic subsides, domestic air service is recovering. Figure 7 tracks available seat miles
scheduled for both domestic and international flights. With domestic flying leading the recovery,
it appears that domestic scheduled capacity is on par with or slightly ahead of 2019. At the end of
2022, international available seat miles continued to lag at about 80% of 2019 capacity.
On the passenger side, the U.S. TSA has tracked daily passengers screened at TSA checkpoints
since the pandemic began. These data, shown in Figure 8, provide a view of passenger activity
3,706
3,475
1,150 1,065
660
495 473
331
Small Regional Large Regional Single-Aisle Twin-Aisle

(< 50 seats) (51-100 seats) (narrowbody) (widebody)
Dec 31 2019 Dec 31 2022

Note: Active aircraft operated on behalf of Alaska, Allegiant, American, Delta, Frontier, Hawaiian, JetBlue,
Southwest, Spirit, Sun Country, or United.
Source: Prepared from data published in Airlines for America, 2023.
Figure 6. U.S. active passenger fleet, 2019 and 2022.

Note: January 2019 = 1.

Source: Published by Oliver Wyman from OAG schedule data via PlaneStats.com (2022).
Figure 7. Capacity index of available seat miles on a rolling 12-month basis.
throughout the pandemic. In 2020, TSA checkpoints handled on average 40% of the number of
passengers that passed through security in 2019. On the lowest days in March, April, and May
2020, checkpoints handled 4% or 5% of 2019 passengers. In 2021, the number of passengers pass-
ing security was on average 68% of 2019 levels, and in 2022, daily passengers were about 90% of
2019 levels. In the first 25 days of 2023, TSA checkpoints reported more screened passengers
than in the same period in 2019 (an average of 103% of 2019 counts).
Local Factors Heavily Influenced Pandemic Impacts

and Outcomes
An abundance of data for commercial airline GA activity is available. Surveys, interviews, and
some published statistics helped to build an understanding of how the pandemic affected general
aviation airports and FBOs.
Virginia Tech/Montgomery Executive Airport (BCB) is an example of a small

GA airport that took advantage of the early days of the pandemic to complete
a major runway extension project. One side of the airport borders Virginia Tech
and, with the new runway capabilities, BCB can now handle jet aircraft.
During the pandemic, while students were mostly home, the university and town
completed several large housing projects. With little nonstop air service available
at nearby Roanoke–Blacksburg Regional Airport (ROA), construction companies
flew management and skilled workers directly into BCB. Once classes resumed
at Virginia Tech, the soccer and basketball teams could then use the airfield for
charter flights to games.
BCB has experienced increased jet traffic and much higher fuel sales. The airport,
serving as the FBO, historically purchased fuel on the spot market. As delivery
dates were delayed because of truck driver shortages, the airport contracted with
a branded fuel company and delivery delays abated. Recruiting employees was
the most challenging part of the pandemic and continues to be an issue for both
part-time and full-time employees.

3,000,000
2,500,000
Daily Passengers through TSA Checkpoints
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
1
8
15
22
29
36
43
50
57
64
71
78
85
92
99
106
113
120
127
134
141
148
155
162
169
176
183
190
197
204
211
218
225
232
239
246
253
260
267
274
281
288
295
302
309
316
323
330
337
344
351
358
365
Day of Year
2023 2022 2021 2020 2019

Source: Compiled from TSA, 2023, data, https://www.tsa.gov/travel/passenger-volumes.
Figure 8. TSA checkpoint travel numbers, January 1, 2019–January 25, 2023.
The absence of commercial air service in the early days of the pandemic resulted in greater
interest in and use of private aviation at specific locations, especially areas outside the urban
corridor. Among the industries and activities that increased reliance on private aviation were
• Construction management and inspection services.
• Medical airlift of patients, lab tests, medicines, vaccines, and pandemic protection gear.
• Urgent transport of essential industrial and manufacturing parts and equipment.
• Technology support services.
• Transport of workers skilled in specialty trades and professions.
• Pilot training.
• Administrative functions for large chains of essential businesses such as banks, grocery stores,
and hospitals.
• Law enforcement and search and rescue.
• Access to recreational experiences, such as golf, hiking, and skiing.
• Professionals commuting between second homes and offices.
Some general aviation airports languished as local economic activities such as the following
were shut down:
• Airports that provide a supporting role to corporate travel.
• Large-scale people-gathering events such as football games, air shows, NASCAR races, concerts,
and conventions.
• Universities, with students at home and research centers closed.
• Skydiving and balloon centers.
• In-person government meetings, inspections, and oversight.
Temporary, but consequential, adverse impacts from the pandemic affected some general avia-
tion airports in urban areas and small towns dependent on a few aviation customers. For example,
Teterboro Airport (TEB), in New Jersey 12 miles from Midtown Manhattan, lost 50% of its traffic in
2020 but regained most of it back by the end of 2022. Similarly, Wittman Regional Airport (OSH)
in Wisconsin, home of EAA AirVenture Oshkosh—an annual airshow and aviation convention—
cancelled the 2020 fly-in and lost the economic benefits of the event and more than a third of its
traffic that year. When the fly-in resumed in 2021, traffic and fuel sales returned to 2019 levels.
Teterboro traffic had climbed back up to 98% of 2019 levels by the end of 2022.
Other GA airports and FBOs, dependent on fuel sales as a primary source of revenue, were hit
hard. The National Business Aviation Association in April 2020 reported that:
• Fuel sales at Gainesville Municipal Airport (GLE) in Texas were one-tenth of comparable months
in previous years.
• A major tenant at Texas Gulf Coast Regional Airport (LBX) informed the airport that fuel
purchases would decline by 75% in the months ahead.
• Okeechobee County Airport (OBE) in Florida reported fuel sales “are close to zero.”
• Closure of a skydiving business at DeLand Municipal Airport (DED), Florida, contributed to
a drop of 90% of traffic.
• Some airport businesses and concessions feared that they would not be able to make rent.
At many GA airports, COVID impacts were more nuanced. Virginia Highlands Airport (VJI)
in Abingdon, Virginia, stayed busier than ever. With eight corporate jets based at the airport,
these aircraft were actively used throughout the pandemic and became the lifeblood of jet fuel
sales. One jet was operated by a grocery chain that had stores in four or five states; another was
operated by a bank chain. These businesses never closed during the pandemic, and the jets flew
two to three times per week. In addition, the airport is located near two golf course country clubs.
VJI became a popular airport destination for avid golfers. VJI’s main challenge was managing

staff. The airport had 10 or 11 full-time employees, 3 of whom were administrative. It was dif-
ficult to offer remote options for any employees and keep the airport operating. So airport man-
agement stayed flexible to cover for sick employees and provide a safe working environment.
Some employees worked 12-hour shifts; others worked on weekends or nights. Since the airport
is operated by the county, it had to abide by county work rules and pay. To stay competitive, the
airport was able to increase starting pay and has tried to stay flexible with work schedules to
retain staff.
Boom in Private Jet or Turboprop Aviation

The potential for attracting additional business and high-net-worth travelers during the pan-
demic did not go unnoticed by private charter operators. Private air travel experienced tre-
mendous growth during the pandemic by offering schedule flexibility, more personal space,
and potentially lower exposure to COVID-19. There are several primary ways to participate
in private jet or turboprop flying, which are highlighted in Table 4. For each of the options, the
important details include financing, annual costs, and fees as well as rules about advance booking
requirements, aircraft routing, aircraft type, and number of passengers onboard.
Charter and Fractional Operators

During the pandemic, fractional and charter operators gained a significant share of the overall
private jet market, flying a record 2,699,184 flight hours in 2021, a 64% increase over 2020 and
24% above 2019 (Gollan, 2023). This new demand was due in part to new private air passen-
gers migrating from commercial flights. Figure 9 shows historical flight hours for charter and
fractional operators since 2007 and their market share of total private aircraft hours. In 2019,
operators under Federal Aviation Regulations parts 135 and 91k (in title 14 of the Code of Fed-
eral Regulations, which deal with charter and shared fractional jets) accounted for 48.6% of total
hours flown; in 2021, shared jets accounted for 54.3% of total hours flown.
Table 4. Primary options for flying private turboprops or jet aircraft.
Private Aviation
Options Description Pros/Cons
Flexible schedule, personalized cabin, control over pilot
selection, tax advantages. Requires large capital
investment and ongoing expenses for maintenance and
aircraft storage. Full ownership often involves annual
Full ownership Own your own aircraft flying hours of more than 150 hours/year.
Multiple users split the cost of Smaller investment, tax advantages, additional fees.
an aircraft and can access a fleet Requires a 3- to 5-year commitment. Typically, fractional
Fractional of similar aircraft for a ownership involves more than 50 hours of flying per year
ownership contracted number of hours for each owner.
Smaller time and financial commitment, locked-in flight
cost, no asset risk, minimum flying times. Can require a
membership fee. Jet cards sell prepaid annual flight
Jet card A block of prepaid flight hours hours. Actual costs to fly can be quite complex.
Maximum flexibility and no capital commitment. Aircraft
or pricing not guaranteed. Might have to pay for
Charter On-demand flying positioning or use empty-leg options.
Source: Adapted from Bryant, 2022.

5,000,000
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
Private Jet Hours
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Charter & Other Private Jet Hours

Source: Compiled from Gollan, 2022.
Figure 9. Private jet hours, 2007–2021.
The largest part 135 and part 91k operators account for 20% of total private jet hours flown,
with NetJets, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, being the largest by far. Table 5 shows growth of
the top five fractional and charter operators since 2019. During the pandemic, these companies
were actively engaged in mergers, acquisitions, fleet orders, and stock launches. NetJets added
80 aircraft in 2021 and another 75 jets in 2022 (Epstein, November 2022). In 2021, Wheels Up
completed a public offering via a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), acquired Moun-
tain Air and Alante Air Charter, and forged a partnership with Delta Airlines. These acquisi-
tions resulted in the company increasing total flight hours by 818% between 2019 and 2021.
Expansion of the largest operators has continued. Flexjet and flyExclusive anticipate going public
using SPACs. Vista Global acquired Apollo Jets and Talon Air and has an agreement to buy Air
Hamburg.
In addition to traditional fractional and charter operators, business models that involve resale
of individual seats on public charter flights have expanded under U.S. DOT authorization of
Table 5. Largest charter and fractional operators: global flight hours
of U.S. registered aircraft.
Global Flight Hours Percent Change

Operator 2019 2020 2021 2019–2021 2020–2021
NetJets 462,574 336,252 542,831 17% 61%
Flexjet 130,379 134,481 178,327 37% 33%
Wheels Up 18,169 107,592 166,805 818% 55%
Vista Global 65,344 71,343 96,200 47% 35%
flyExclusive 20,764 25,872 46,617 125% 80%
Totals 697,230 675,540 1,030,780 48% 53%
Sources: Adapted from Private Jet Card Comparisons’ compilation of Argus TraqPak’s (2022) data of part 91k
and part 135 operators.

parts 380 and 135 of the Code of Federal Regulations. For example, JSX is a hop-on jet charter ser-
vice operating in 23 cities (as of January 2023). JSX customers fly between private air terminals
on 30-seat Embraer jets. Passengers using JSX can also earn United mileage points for each trip.
BLADE—perhaps known best for its continuous helicopter services to airports in New York,
Miami, and Los Angeles—allows purchase of individual seats on scheduled flights to vacation
spots such as Aspen, Colorado; Miami, Florida; and Nassau, The Bahamas. The New York–Miami
flight leaves Westchester County Airport (HPN) and flies to Miami-Opa Locka Executive Air-
port (OPF) in a reconfigured CRJ200. BLADE also offers a feature called “FlightTilt” that allows
an individual to propose a shared charter. The flight is confirmed once four other seats are sold.
Los Angeles–based Surf Air, like BLADE, does not own or operate any aircraft but instead
acts as an agent for its members. The company offers four membership options ranging from
$199 per month to gain access to any flight to $2,999 per month to fly across the entire network
without limits.
Other companies such as Set Jet, Wheels Up, Linear Air, and XO also operate in this segment.
XO offers empty-leg specials that can save 50% to 75% of the usual cost. Wheels Up has a rela-
tionship with Delta SkyMiles (Stawski, 2021).
These part 380 charter operators have crafted itineraries and membership programs to attract
and keep users on private aircraft. The pandemic gave this aviation segment a boost that bears
watching as these companies refine their products and offer an alternative to scheduled com-
mercial flights.
Used Aircraft Sales

Between 2020 and 2021, as the fractional and charter operators grew, there were also many
first-time private aircraft buyers in the market. High demand for aircraft led to increases in air-
craft valuations (as much as 50% increases in median values) and historically low inventories of
pre-owned aircraft. For aircraft buyers, cash was king, with nearly 70% of all transactions in cash;
just over 20% purchased with loans; and under 10% with leases (Young, 2022). Aircraft manu-
facturer backlogs limited the number of new aircraft available for purchase. Figure 10 tracks
pre-owned private jet transactions and aircraft deliveries by quarter, from first quarter 2020
through second quarter 2022. Several features of the graph are notable:
• Production caps on new aircraft kept deliveries constant throughout the pandemic.
• Supply chain and labor constraints continue to keep manufacturing output in check for the
near future.
• December is a peak month for purchases of aircraft both new and pre-owned, suggesting that
year-end tax strategies and bonus depreciation may have inspired aircraft acquisitions.
Mixed Signals for the Economy—Direction Still Unfolding

The aviation industry has always been closely associated with the condition of the economy.
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted traditional relationships. Multiple indicators provide a
visual of the economic uncertainty of the times:
• Real GDP (gross domestic product; “real GDP” is adjusted for inflation) has been volatile
during the pandemic but appears at the beginning of 2023 to show continued growth.
• Inflation at the consumer level and producer price levels has moderated but remains at histori-
cally high levels.
• The Federal Reserve Board continues to use interest rates as a principal tool to manage and
stabilize the economy.

2,500
New Piston
2,000
1,500
New Turboprops/Jets
1,000
500 Pre-owned Turbine
-
IQ 2020 IIQ 2020 IIIQ 2020 IVQ 2020 IQ 2021 IIQ 2021 IIIQ 2021 IVQ 2021 IQ 2022 IIQ 2022
Note: IQ = first quarter; IIQ = second quarter; IIIQ = third quarter; IVQ = fourth quarter.
Sources: AMSTAT, Business Aviation Quarterly Reports, February 2022 and October 2022; General Aviation
Manufacturers Association, General Aviation Aircraft Shipment Reports: IQ 2020–IIQ 2022.
Figure 10. Pre-owned business jet transactions and aircraft shipments,

IQ 2020–IIQ 2022.
• Civilian unemployment rates are at a 20-year low.

• Aviation fuel prices are fluctuating with the price of crude oil.
• Geopolitical tensions, including the war in Ukraine, are increasing perceived levels of risk.
The figures in the next sections illustrate some of the mixed signals present in the economy.
Real GDP, Seasonally Adjusted

Real GDP is an inflation-adjusted measure that reflects the value of all goods and services
produced in the economy during a specific period. Real GDP makes comparing GDP from year
to year or from quarter to quarter more meaningful, because it filters out the effects of inflation
on economic activity (Ganti, 2023).
Figure 11 shows the changes in GDP between one quarter and the previous quarter and high-
lights the volatile effects of first the COVID shutdown and then the resumption of economic
activity in the third quarter of 2020. Given the rebound effects through June 30, 2022, it is not
evident in this historical chart which direction the economy is headed; however, GDP is per-
forming slightly below the trend line established over the past five years.
Real GDP and Aviation Operations

The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on aviation, airports, and the hospitality
industry. Figure 12 compares the percent change in GDP and aircraft activity with the same
quarter in the previous year. Year-over-year change is shown to account for seasonality in air
carrier and general aviation activity. The figure shows the close relationship between GDP and
aviation activity up until the end of the Q1 2020, when this correlation went off the rails with a
decline or change in commercial operations far greater than GA operations. Aircraft operations
are trending back to historical relationships with economic activity.

35.3%
5.0% 6.3% 7.0% 7.0%

2.7% 3.6% 3.9% 2.7% 2.6%
0.7% 2.2%
-1.6% -0.6%
-4.6%
-29.9%
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
2018 2019 2019 2019 2019 2020 2020 2020 2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 2022 2022 2022
Source: Compiled from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), Federal Research Bank of St. Louis, https://fred.stlouisfed.org
/series/GDP.
Figure 11. Real gross domestic product: Percent change from preceding quarter,
seasonally adjusted.
135%
Percent Change for Quarter One Year Ago
85%
35%
Real GDP
-15%
-65%
IQ 2013
IQ 2015
IQ 2016
IQ 2017
IQ 2018
IQ 2020
IQ 2021
IQ 2022
IQ 2014
IQ 2019
2Q 2013
3Q 2013
4Q 2013
2Q 2014
3Q 2014
4Q 2014
3Q 2015
4Q 2015
2Q 2016
4Q 2016
2Q 2017
3Q 2017
4Q 2017
2Q 2018
3Q 2018
4Q 2018
2Q 2019
3Q 2019
4Q 2019
3Q 2020
4Q 2020
2Q 2021
3Q 2021
4Q 2021
2Q 2022
2Q 2015
3Q 2016
2Q 2020
Real GDP
Source: Compiled from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS), 2022.
Figure 12. Change from quarter one year ago in air carrier and general aviation operations and real GDP,
seasonally adjusted, 1Q 2012–2Q 2022.

Inflation
The United States operates in a complex global economy, which was halted for a short time
during the pandemic. Work stoppages resulting in supply chain disruptions and steps by the
United States and Europe to keep national economies functioning led to imbalances and ineffi-
ciencies between supply and demand at all stages of production, distribution, and consumption.
These imbalances led to an inflationary environment. The war in Ukraine, economic sanctions
against Russia, and COVID-related lockdowns in China from 2020 to 2022 have also likely con-
tributed to a high degree of economic volatility and uncertainty. Figures 13 and 14 show this
1.5%
Percent Change from Previous Month
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
-0.5%
-1.0%
Mar-17
Sep-12
Mar-13
Sep-13
Mar-14
Sep-14
Mar-15
Sep-17
Mar-18
Sep-18
Mar-19
Sep-19
Mar-20
Sep-20
Mar-21
Sep-21
Mar-22
Sep-15
Mar-16
Sep-16
Sep-22
Source: Compiled from Bureau of Labor Statistics CPIAUCSL datasets, Federal Reserve Economic Data
(FRED), Federal Research Bank of St. Louis, 2022.
Figure 13. Monthly change in Consumer Price Index, seasonally adjusted,

2012–2022.
300
CPI
CPI Index, 1982-1984 = 100
250
200
150 PPI
100
50
0
Mar-22
Mar-14
Mar-21
Mar-17
Mar-20
Mar-19
Mar-13
Mar-15
Mar-16
Mar-18
Sep-22
Sep-21
Sep-20
Sep-16
Sep-17
Sep-19
Sep-12
Sep-13
Sep-14
Sep-15
Sep-18
Consumer Price Index (CPI) Producer Price Index (PPI)

Sources: Compiled from Bureau of Labor Statistics CPIAUCSL and WPSFD4 datasets, Federal Reserve
Economic Data (FRED), Federal Research Bank of St. Louis, 2022.
Figure 14. Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all urban consumers and
Producer Price Index (PPI), seasonally adjusted, 2012–2022.

period of uncertainty from different economic perspectives and set an important context for
future GA activity and FBO operations.
Figure 13 shows the monthly changes (from the previous month) in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI). The steady march in CPI for all urban consumers in the United States started in summer
2020, with a large amount of monthly variability. Figure 14 tracks the index values of the CPI as
well as the Producer Price Index (PPI) for the past 10 years. The period from fall 2012 to 2017
was relatively stable. The indices start a slow climb at that point until March 2020, when both the
CPI and the PPI start to rise. Notably the CPI is rising faster at this point than the PPI, although
both began to level off in September 2022.
Crude Oil, Jet Fuel, and Avgas Fuel Prices

The prices of crude oil and aviation fuels are subject to inflationary pressures. Crude oil spot
prices and the wholesale or resale price for jet fuel and Avgas historically track each other, with
Avgas sold at a premium because of additional refinery processes and limited refinery produc-
tion. Prior to the pandemic, petroleum prices were trending downward. Since spring 2020, prices
of crude oil and refined aviation fuels have been rising with intermittent declines along the
way (See Figure 15). Cutbacks in production by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) and shortages arising from the war in Ukraine, in addition to inflationary
pressures, are contributing factors to rising prices. To offset rising crude oil prices, the U.S.
Department of Energy held public sales of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which as of
the end of 2022 had stabilized the price of crude oil.
Employment and Unemployment

Civilian monthly employment and unemployment rates are shown in Figure 16. Civilian
employment (in thousands) is defined as “persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 states
$120.00 $4.50
Free-On-Board Spot Price Dollars/Barrel
$4.00
Refined Products Wholesale/Resale

$100.00
$3.50
$80.00 $3.00
Dollars/Gallon
$2.50
$60.00
$2.00
$40.00 $1.50
$1.00
$20.00
$0.50
$0.00 $0.00
WTI Crude Jet Fuel Avgas

Linear (WTI Crude) Linear (Jet Fuel) Linear (Avgas)
Source: Compiled from data from U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2022, https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist
/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=rwtc&f=m.
Figure 15. WTI (West Texas Intermediate) crude oil spot prices and wholesale prices for
jet fuel and Avgas, 2012–2022.

16.0 165,000
Monthly Unemployment Rate (Percent)
14.0 160,000
Monthly Employment (000’s)

155,000
12.0
150,000
10.0
145,000
8.0
140,000
6.0
135,000
4.0
130,000
2.0 125,000
0.0 120,000
Sep-12
Jan-16
Sep-17
Feb-18
Dec-18
Jan-21
Feb-13
Dec-13
Nov-16
May-19
Sep-22
Nov-21
May-14
Aug-15
Oct-19
Aug-20
Mar-15
Jun-16
Oct-14
Apr-17
Mar-20
Jun-21
Apr-22
Jul-18
Jul-13
Unemployment Rate Employment (000's)

Linear (Unemployment Rate) Linear ( Employment (000's) )
Source: Compiled from data from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), September 2022
Figure 16. Civilian monthly employment and unemployment rate (percent), seasonally
adjusted.
and the District of Columbia, who are not inmates of institutions (e.g., penal and mental facilities,
homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces” (Bureau of Labor
Statistics). The unemployment rate represents the number of unemployed as a percentage of the
total labor force. Civilian employment was on a steady rise prior to the pandemic and unemploy-
ment was declining. Since the recovery, employment and the unemployment rate have returned
to pre-pandemic levels; however, several industries, including aviation, report difficulty recruit-
ing and retaining workers. Tight labor market conditions and inflation have put upward pressure
on wages and thus have contributed to the current inflationary cycle.
Rising Interest Rates

Given continuing imbalances in demand and supply, rising inflation, and world tensions,
the Federal Reserve System in 2022 employed interest rate hikes to slow down the economy
and dampen inflation. Increasing interest rates is the principal tool the Federal Reserve has to
combat inflation. For aviation, inflation has increased the cost both for fuel and for labor. Higher
interest rates affect borrowing costs for aircraft, working capital, and capital expenditures funded
by debt.
Figure 17 shows the 10-year history of the federal funds rate, which functions as the central
interest rate in U.S. financial markets. It influences other interest rates, such as the prime rate,
which is the rate banks charge their customers with higher credit ratings. Additionally, the federal
funds rate indirectly influences longer-term interest rates, such as mortgages, loans, and savings,
all of which are very important to consumer wealth (Monetary Policy, Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System). The Federal Open Market Committee meets eight times a year to
determine the federal funds target rate. As Figure 17 indicates, this rate is subject to important
fluctuations as the committee controls the amount of liquidity available to U.S. banks. During the
pandemic, the rate was kept low to keep funds circulating in the economy. The tightening that
began in 2022 is evident in the graph.

3.5
Daily Federal Funds Effective Rate (Percent)

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Oct-12 Oct-13 Oct-14 Oct-15 Oct-16 Oct-17 Oct-18 Oct-19 Oct-20 Oct-21 Oct-22
Sources: Compiled from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), October 2022.
Figure 17. Federal Reserve System federal funds effective rate, October 2012–
October 2022.
FAA Aerospace Forecasts

Forecasting in the aftermath of the pandemic is especially challenging given mixed economic
signals, continuing worldwide tensions, and supply chain issues. Since airline deregulation in
1978, air carriers have endured multiple peak and low business cycles, bankruptcies, and mergers.
By the Great Recession of 2008, U.S. airlines had fine-tuned their operations through continual
elimination of unprofitable routes, sophisticated yield management, reduction of travel agent
costs, fuel hedging, use of service fees, and retirement of old and inefficient aircraft. During
the post-recession period, these strategies likely contributed to profitability levels and market posi-
tions going into the pandemic. These same tools equipped airlines with the ability to rapidly reduce
capacity and costs and respond to travel demand changes during the pandemic. The regional
airlines had a tougher time because most are highly dependent on contracts with network
carriers. During the pandemic, three regional airlines—Trans States, ExpressJet, and Compass
Airlines—ceased operations as American, Delta, and United consolidated remaining regional
spoke service. Mainline carriers have also recruited regional carrier pilots to fill vacancies, result-
ing in both a shortage of pilots and rising labor costs for the regionals.
The strategies that the airlines used to survive the pandemic are likely to shape the industry
for years to come. FAA forecasts expect airlines to remain smaller, with reduced aircraft fleets
and workforces (FAA, June 2022).
Since FBOs are demand-driven businesses, changes within the different segments of aviation
will reflect eventually on FBO sales revenue, customer base, and growth prospects. If mainline
airlines stay at reduced operating capacity, private aircraft operators may keep first-time cus-
tomers that they recruited during the pandemic. Other trends in general aviation appear to have
accelerated:
• Growth of the turbine aircraft fleet (jets and helicopters) will continue to offset the retirement
of older piston aircraft and helicopters.

• While piston aircraft will remain dominant in terms of the total number of aircraft, hours
flown (and fuel consumed) by turbine aircraft are now the growth engine for general aviation.
The FAA expects aircraft hours to increase by 31.4% between 2020 and 2042, or 1.2% annually.
Turbine, rotorcraft, and experimental aircraft account for all this growth (FAA, June 2022).
Composition of the General Aviation Fleet

Figure 18 shows the FAA’s estimated composition of active aircraft in the U.S. general aviation
fleet in 2021. Single-engine and multi-engine piston aircraft combined—despite annual declines
for more than a decade—still make up 66% of the GA fleet. Turbine and piston helicopters repre-
sent 5% of the fleet, and jets, 13%. Experimental and light sport aircraft may be the replacement
aircraft for recreational enthusiasts, at 14% of the fleet.
Different General Aviation Segments Are Growing or Contracting

The FAA takes information collected from the annual General Aviation and Part 135 Activity
Survey and prepares assumptions about aircraft deliveries (obtained from the General Aviation
Manufacturers Association), retirement rates, and forecasted economic growth to estimate the
future fleet size and level of general aviation activity. The most current survey was completed in
2020. Table 6 shows FAA forecasts for fleet size, hours flown, and fuel consumed. The year 2021
is the estimated base year. Built into those forecasts is a sizeable increase in jet fuel consumed
between 2021 and 2022, which is consistent with observed growth in private jet aviation, par-
ticularly among fractional and charter operators.
Of note, in 2021 turboprop and turbojet (turbine) aircraft made up 13% of the active fleet.
By the end of the forecast period, the number of active piston aircraft in the fleet is estimated to
decline by 22,055 aircraft, and turbines will increase by 12,425. In 2042, turbine jets will be 18%
of the active fleet.
Figure 19 and Figure 20 show the FAA forecasts of hours flown and fuel consumed. In terms
of numbers of aircraft, piston aircraft remain the dominant aircraft type in general aviation.
However, in terms of hours flown and fuel consumed, turbine aircraft represent greater growth
opportunities and volume of fuel sales for an FBO (See Table 6).
Light Sport, 2,765, Other, 3,820, 2%

Rotorcraft Turbine, 1%
6,900, 3%
Experimental,
Rotorcraft Piston, 27,000, 13%
2,920, 2%
Turbo-Jet, 15,755, 8%
Single Engine, 123,105,
Turbo-Prop, 10,275, 60%
5%
Multi-Engine, 11,865,
6%
Source: Compiled from data from FAA, June 2022.
Figure 18. Composition of the U.S. active general aviation and air taxi fleet,
2021 (estimated).

Table 6. Historical and forecast general aviation active aircraft, hours flown, and fuel consumed.
Active Aircraft Hours Flown (000's) Gallons of Fuel Consumed (000's) Per Piston Aircraft Per Turbine Aircraft
Year Piston Turbine Piston Turbine Avgas Jet Fuel Hours Fuel Hours Fuel
2021 134,970 26,030 12,967 6,372 205,000 1,519,000 96 1,519 245 58,356
2022 133,815 26,480 12,942 7,022 206,000 1,680,000 97 1,539 265 63,444
2032 121,845 31,955 11,824 9,685 197,000 2,292,000 97 1,617 303 71,726
2042 112,915 38,455 11,294 11,743 184,000 2,707,000 100 1,630 305 70,394
Average Annual Growth
2021–2022 −0.9% 1.7% −0.2% 10.2% 0.6% 10.6% 0.7% 1.4% 8.3% 8.7%
2022–2032 −0.9% 1.9% −0.9% 3.3% −0.5% 3.2% 0.0% 0.5% 1.3% 1.2%
2022–2042 −0.8% 1.9% −0.7% 2.6% −0.3% 2.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.7% 0.5%
Note: 2021 was the estimated base year.
13,500 14,000
Turbine Aircraft Hours Flown (000's)

Piston Aircraft Hours Flown (000's)
13,000 12,000
12,500 10,000
12,000 8,000
11,500 6,000
11,000 4,000
10,500 2,000
10,000 -
2021E 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042
Turbine Piston
Figure 19. FAA forecasts of hours flown by piston and turbine aircraft.
The FAA forecasts do not address the impacts of unleaded Avgas and sustainable aviation fuel
(SAF) on the active fleet. These fuels are already available in limited quantities for use in qualified
aircraft. It is likely these fuels can and will be substituted for existing refined products. In this
scenario, the impact of unleaded fuels on the fleet would be less than if these fuels required costly
aircraft modifications. For FBOs that depend on Avgas sales as a principal source of revenue, the
forecasts indicate that smaller FBOs will need to increase market share, offer new services, or
increase real estate revenues to offset reduced demand for this fuel.
Wrap-Up on Aviation Trends

In the period leading up to the pandemic, both the economy and commercial aviation regis-
tered a solid performance. General aviation achieved stability by offsetting declines in the piston
aircraft segment with growth in business aviation. An airport’s location and mix of customers
influenced the degree and nature of pandemic impacts. General aviation fared well compared

210,000 3,000,000
205,000
Jet Fuel Consumed (000's of Gallons)

2,500,000
Avgas Consumed (000's of Gallons)
200,000
2,000,000
195,000
190,000 1,500,000
185,000
1,000,000
180,000
500,000
175,000
170,000 -
2021E 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042
Jet Fuel Avgas

Figure 20. FAA forecasts of Avgas and jet fuel consumption.
to commercial aviation, particularly at airports with air-reliant businesses that did not close.
Destination airports were also a standout for increased traffic.
The market for used business aircraft increased during this time. Valuations of heavy jets,
super-mid jets, medium jets, light jets, and turboprops soared as much as 30%–50%. In the used
aircraft market, inventory remained at historic lows. Around 70% of transactions in this market
involved cash deals. During this period, there was extensive merger and acquisition activity
among the fractional and charter operations and the FBOs.
As the worst of the pandemic subsides in early 2023, travel demand is up, and all segments of
the aviation industry are recovering. The rapid closure and opening of the industry have come
with difficult-to-solve complications that are preventing commercial airlines from taking full
advantage of the travel boom. This has presented some private aviation operators with opportu-
nities. The largest challenge facing the industry is a labor shortage in every category from pilots
to baggage handlers, agents, flight attendants, mechanics, line technicians, air traffic controllers,
TSA agents, and vendors that supply airports and aircraft. The industry remains regulated to
the extent that these workers require training (sometimes hours of training and certification),
background checks, and drug testing. Rising and competitive wages in other industries, health
insecurity, and on-location work requirements as well as the retirement of the baby boomers
have each contributed to the labor shortfalls. The Great Resignation is a commonly discussed
and unfolding phenomenon.
Tight labor conditions have affected aviation businesses of all sizes. Assembling flight crews
in the right location has challenged major carriers and caused cancellations or delays during
bad weather and peak holiday periods. For a general aviation airport or an FBO, labor shortages
can have significant impacts. The loss of one key employee can hamper airfield operations, line
services, or aircraft repairs for prolonged periods if new recruits are unavailable.
With the prospects of increasing travel demand in the spring and summer of 2023, there are
good reasons for the large and small segments of the aviation industry to address and solve the
challenges of labor shortages, rising costs, and continued perceived economic risk.

CHAPTER 3
Current Landscape for U.S. FBOs
Quick Takes
The following bullet points summarize the current FBO landscape.
• During the pandemic, the largest FBO chains were sold or consolidated, expanding their net-
works. Private equity firms continue to be active participants in the FBO industry.
• Destination locations in the United States experienced rapid growth in private aviation and
investment in facilities.
• Certain pandemic impacts still affect FBOs. These include workforce shortages and recruitment
challenges, changing demand patterns, rising costs, health and safety practices, and pursuit of
alternative stable revenue streams.
• Other challenges that existed prior to COVID-19 remain, including diminishing fuel margins,
hangar shortages, rates and charges that cover costs, and availability of capital to improve,
update, and expand facilities.
• Looking ahead, new, more-sustainable fuels; electrification of aircraft and ground equipment;
and advanced air mobility (AAM) present new opportunities for FBOs.
Observed Changes in FBO Ownership

and Facilities Since 2018
Slight Reduction in Aviation Facilities with Fuel
In December 2018, extensive analysis of FBOs indicated that there were 3,661 FBOs operat-
ing at 3,233 public-use airports (Kramer, 2020). These airports were a combination of publicly
and privately owned facilities and included airports, heliports, seaplane bases, and a handful
of specialized facilities for balloons, gliders, and ultralight aircraft. Those counts were based
on analysis of the FAA Form 5010-1 database and the AirNav database. To obtain a glimpse of
what may have changed during the pandemic years, Table 7 compares the number of aviation
facilities listed in the FAA’s 5010 database in 2018 with the number listed in the same database
in October 2022.
The number of public-use 5010 airports and heliports has declined by 38 and by 3, respec-
tively. Seaplane bases have increased by 12. Facilities offering fuel have declined by 24. Since
those changes are less than 1%, it can be assumed that at least on an absolute basis, the number
of facilities offering fuel and FBO services has remained somewhat constant.
Another benchmark is the AirNav fuel price survey. FBOs can upload fuel prices to the AirNav
website for Avgas (leaded and unleaded), Jet A, SAF, and motor gasoline. Fuel prices represent a
30-day rolling average. Reporting facilities can be for either public or private use, so there is not
a one-to-one correspondence between the AirNav fuel statistics and aviation facilities reported
28

Current Landscape for U.S. FBOs 29
Table 7. Public-use aviation facilities in

continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii.
Change
2019 2022 Number Percent
Public-Use 5010 Facilities 5,092 5,063 (29) −0.6
Airports 4,812 4,774 (38) −0.8
Heliports 60 57 (3) −5.0
Seaplane Bases 211 223 12 5.7
Other 9 9 – 0.0
Facilities with Fuel 3,302 3,278 (24) −0.7
Source: Compiled from FAA Form 5010-1, Airport Master Records, as of
December 5, 2018, and October 6, 2022, https://www.airportiq5010.com
/5010Web/.
in the 5010-1 database. Table 8 compares the number of reporting FBOs by FAA region in 2019
and in 2022.
There are 33 fewer FBOs reporting fuel prices in 2022 and 4 additional FBOs reporting from
the FAA’s Alaska and Central regions. The Western-Pacific region has 13 fewer FBOs participat-
ing in the fuel survey.
The net change in FBOs reporting fuel prices is about −1% of total FBOs, also indicating that
the number of FBO locations in the United States has been stable over the past five years.
Largest FBO Chains Merged and Expanded Their Networks

At a more granular level, the FBO industry remains diverse. ACRP Synthesis 108 grouped
FBOs into four categories:
• Publicly owned FBOs.
• Independent FBOs with one to two locations.
• Small-network FBOs with three to five locations.
• Large networks of FBOs and franchises with more than five locations.
Table 8. FBOs reporting fuel prices on AirNav

website.
Reporting FBOs Change

FAA Region 2019 2022 Number Percent
Nationwide 3,674 3,637 (37) −1.0
Alaska 79 82 3 3.8
Central 355 356 1 0.3
Eastern 362 358 (4) −1.1
Great Lakes 735 731 (4) −0.5
New England 145 139 (6) −4.1
Northwest Mountain 391 386 (5) −1.3
Southern 676 671 (5) −0.7
Southwest 577 573 (4) −0.7
Western-Pacific 354 341 (13) −3.7
Source: Compiled from AirNav website as of May 1, 2019, and
November 1, 2022.

At the time, these categories worked, but since 2019, large networks of FBOs have engaged in
another wave of merger and acquisition activity, and today this group of FBOs warrants further
distinctions. In 2021, more than 250 FBOs changed hands because of the sales of Signature Flight
Support and Atlantic Aviation. Signature was sold to a consortium of private equity firms consist-
ing of Blackstone, Global Infrastructure Partners, and Cascade Investments for $4.7 billion. KKR
(Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) acquired Atlantic Aviation for $4.475 billion. Ross Aviation acquired
Air Service Hawaii’s six FBOs and subsequently merged with Atlantic. Signature acquired 14 FBOs
from TAC Air. Other medium-sized and regional FBOs also consolidated through acquisitions.
Table 9 compares the size of the largest FBO chains as of December 8, 2018, with October 31,
2022, and characterizes FBOs as large, medium, and regional FBO chains.
Table 9 shows U.S. locations only. Most of the large and medium FBO chains have multiple
international locations as well. Overall, this group of FBOs has grown from 374 locations in the
United States to 426 in less than four years. Notably, the Paragon Network, a distinguished group
of independent operators networked together, has become smaller during this timeframe as the
FBO chains consolidated further.
Table 9 shows the growing dominance of private equity funds and investment companies in
the FBO sphere. Since 2020, the FBO industry has had the most FBO acquisitions and mergers
on record. The transactions reflect revised thinking about real estate valuations of FBO leases
and development potential for new hangar and infrastructure projects (such as electric charging
stations). Low inventory of used aircraft—along with high valuations of aircraft and increased
Table 9. Comparison of large FBO chains, U.S. locations only, 2018 and 2022.
U.S. Locations
Network FBOs 2018 2022 Category Notes on 2022 U.S. Ownership
Blackstone, Global Infrastructure Partners, and
Signature Flight Support/Signature Select 129 147 Large Cascade acquired in 2021
Atlantic Aviation 68 102 Large KKR acquired in 2022
Million Air 24 30 Medium Privately owned with franchise business model
Avflight 19 21 Medium A division of Avfuel
Sold 5 New York FBOs to Modern Air; operates in
Sheltair 18 19 Medium Florida, Georgia, and Colorado
Paragon Network 25 19 Medium Network of independent FBOs
Crowley 14 18 Regional Primarily distributes and sells fuel in Alaska
Modern Aviation 0 16 Medium Owned by Tiger Infrastructure Fund
FlightLevel Aviation 7 12 Regional Operates on East Coast and in Chicago
Jet Aviation 8 11 Medium Owned by General Dynamics
NOVA Infrastructure/Wafra acquired March 2022;
Hawthorne Global Aviation Services 6 10 Medium acquires Choice Aviation October 2022
Vertical integration; merged with Eagle Creek Aviation
Jet Access unknown 10 Regional in 2021
Carver Aero/Revv Aviation 2 7 Regional Owned by CL Enterprises Group; operates in Midwest
Cutter Flying Services 4 6 Regional Southwest family-owned business
InstarAGF Asset Management acquired Skyservice in
Leading Edge Aviation/Skyservice 6 4 Regional 2017; acquired Leading Edge in 2019
Wilson Air Center 4 4 Regional Southeast family-owned business
Lynx 6 0 Acquired 9 FBOs acquired by Atlantic
TAC Air 15 0 Acquired Sold 14 to Signature; divested 3 to Atlantic
Ross Aviation 13 0 Acquired Merged with Atlantic
Air Service Hawaii 6 0 Acquired Acquired by Ross/merged with Atlantic
Total U.S. Locations 374 436
Note: Observations made December 8, 2018, and October 31, 2022. Source: Compiled from FBO websites and ACRP Synthesis 108.

flying of cabin-class jets (despite rising fuel prices)—made a compelling case that this segment of
general aviation demonstrated resilience during the pandemic and that high-net-worth indi-
viduals might be a consistent group of users going forward.
Consolidation of the largest chains of FBOs did not appear unexpectedly. This was the third
wave of mergers and acquisitions. Between 2006 and 2016, approximately 400 FBOs changed
owners. Many of these transactions occurred as long-term leases expired and leaseholds
increased in value. The Great Recession of 2008 forced some transactions as well (Wilson,
2021). BBA Aviation (Signature Flight Support) and the Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation
(Atlantic Aviation) have a long history of mergers and acquisitions. Figure 21 summarizes the
highlights of merger and acquisition activity for the two companies, who also expanded their
networks through competitive bids on new FBO leases, joint use agreements, and purchases of
adjacent airport lands to expand and redevelop existing FBO real estate. Signature also has part-
ner agreements with independent FBOs through its Signature Select program, bringing these
FBOs into its network and rewards programs.
Mergers and acquisitions have also served as catalysts for other FBO networks started by
previous employees of the large FBO chains. Ross Aviation began as a spin-off of six FBOs
from Signature’s acquisition of Landmark Aviation. Modern Aviation executives had previ-
ously worked with Macquarie, Atlantic Aviation, and Sheltair. SAR Trilogy Management was
co-founded by the former president of Signature Flight Support. This group of leaders special-
ized in building scalable FBO platforms.
Seasonal Markets—The New FBO Growth Area

Leisure markets in the United States recovered from the pandemic faster than business and
international markets. Remote work made it possible to live and work in seasonal and destina-
tion markets. As a consequence, those markets observed increased travel by private aircraft and a
noticeable investment in facilities. Table 10 shows examples of itinerant and local GA operations
at three destinations in the mountain west: Vail, Colorado; Bozeman, Montana; and Jackson
Hole, Wyoming. All three areas have extensive second home developments, and each experi-
enced large increases in private aviation during the pandemic.
The surge in leisure market travel did not go unnoticed by the larger FBO chains. At Bozeman
Yellowstone International Airport (BZN), Signature Flight Support has operated a full-service
FBO since 2000. In 2020, Jet Aviation purchased the second FBO, Arlin’s Aircraft Services, and
a 40,000-square-foot hangar is under construction in 2023. In 2022, Million Air announced that
it would locate a third FBO at Bozeman. In 2021, Signature acquired Vail Valley Jet Center. Jet
Aviation is expanding its hangar footprint at Scottsdale (SDL). At Coeur d’Alene Airport/Pappy
Boyington Field (COE), wooden boat manufacturer StanCraft acquired the sole FBO, Southfield
Aviation, and developed a private jet center, which opened in May 2022. The new complex con-
sists of a 15,000-square-foot terminal and the former FBO facilities.
Other destination markets also experienced rapid growth in private jet activity. Naples Avi-
ation, operated by the Naples Airport Authority in Florida, has experienced a major shift in
aircraft mix and operations. In the past decade, jet operations have grown from 23% of total
operations in 2011 to 41% in 2021, as shown in Table 11. Growth in cabin-class jet operations
intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Increased traffic resulted in higher fuel sales. Fuel
volumes grew more than 40% in 2021 and 20% in the first six months of 2022. Figure 22 com-
pares aircraft operations and fuel sales at Naples Airport (APF).
Growth at Naples Airport required the Naples Airport Authority to open a second FBO to
increase ramp space and improve aircraft separations. Fortunately, the old commercial service
terminal had previously served as an alternate FBO during the remodeling of the existing FBO,

Source: Compiled from Signature website, https://www.signatureaviation.com/about/newsroom/, and Atlantic website,

https://www.atlanticaviation.com /news/.
Figure 21. History of Signature and Atlantic mergers and acquisitions.

Table 10. Itinerant and local general aviation

operations.
Airport 2019 2020 2021 Change

Bozeman (BZN) 71,344 78,001 79,614 12%
Jackson Hole (JAC) 10,049 11,437 14,190 41%
Vail (EGE) 25,249 28,285 34,971 39%
Source: Compiled from Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS), 2022,
https://aspm.faa.gov/opsnet/sys/Airport.asp.
Table 11. Aircraft operations at Naples Airport (APF), fiscal years 2011–2021.
Fiscal Year Ending % Change % Change

September 30th 2012 2019 2020 2021 2011–2021 2019–2021
Total Operations 87,078 112,800 104,479 113,137 34% 0.3%
Jet Operations 19,503 33,756 33,193 46,920 144% 39%
Percent Jet Operations 22% 30% 32% 41%
Source: Compiled from Naples Airport Authority, 2022, https://www.flynaples.com/faq/.
120,000 12,000,000
100,000 10,000,000
Fuel Sales (Gallons)

80,000 8,000,000
60,000 6,000,000
40,000 4,000,000
20,000 2,000,000
- -
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Jet A 100LL
Source: Compiled from Naples Airport Authority, 2022, https://www.flynaples.com/faq/.
Figure 22. Aircraft operations vs. fuel sales at Naples Airport (APF),
fiscal years 2012–2021.

so the space was already set up to handle FBO operations. NetJets and other tenants moved to the
commercial service terminal. Since the terminal was built in the 1980’s, the authority has been
considering options for its future as a facility for reuse or rebuild.
Publicly Owned FBOs Remain a Diverse Group

Publicly owned FBOs are more difficult to track. They represent a large and diverse group of
primarily individual entities owned directly by government entities or authorities or by other
quasi-public groups. Among the largest publicly owned FBOs are Naples Aviation (APF), San
Bernadino’s Luxivair SBD (SBD), and DuPage Flight Center (DPA). Each of these offers a wide
range of full services that cater to both large-cabin jet aircraft and smaller aircraft. Early publicly
owned FBOs at commercial airports include Fort Wayne Aero Center (FWA) and Cerulean
Aviation at Greenville–Spartanburg (GSP). The majority of other publicly owned FBOs are quite
small and provide minimal services, such as self-fueling, courtesy cars, and airport management.
Since airport-owned FBOs function either by intention as an exercise of proprietary exclusive
rights or by default as the best financially viable option in a small market, most publicly owned
FBOs have remained as such since 2019 with a few notable and recent additions.
Pryor Field Regional Airport (DCU), Alabama

During the pandemic, some smaller private FBOs went out of business, and facilities were
taken over by the airport sponsor. For example, Alabama’s Pryor Field Regional Airport (DCU)—
15 miles from Huntsville International Airport (HSV)—assumed operation of its FBO after the
current operator gave 30 days’ notice of closure, citing in 2020 a slowdown of corporate traffic
and difficult economic conditions during the pandemic. The airport has 124 based aircraft and
an estimated 164,000 annual operations (Form 5010-1). The airport split the FBO functions with
the former FBO owner, who kept the maintenance shop. The airport took over management of
the terminal, car rentals, and fueling.
Wichita Falls Regional Airport (SPS), Texas

Wichita Falls operates two airports, Wichita Falls Regional Airport (SPS) and Kickapoo
Downtown Airport (CWC). Historically the city had operated the FBO at Kickapoo, which had
75 based aircraft and approximately 33,800 annual operations. In contrast, SPS was located on
Sheppard Air Force Base. This joint use facility supports three commercial flights to Dallas/
Ft. Worth International Airport and 13 civilian based aircraft. Most of the operations at SPS are
military—77% of 256,000 annual operations (Form 5010-1). The city decided to take over FBO
services at SPS when Signature Flight Support announced it was leaving this market. The transi-
tion took place on October 1, 2020.
Jackson Hole Airport (JAC), Wyoming

As a third example, Jackson Hole Airport (JAC) engaged in an extended effort to take over
FBO operations from an existing private FBO operator. The process began in 2017, when the
airport board received a proposal for a second FBO. The board gave this proposal serious con-
sideration before reversing course and announcing it would instead buy out the last five years
of Jackson Hole Aviation’s operating agreement for $26 million (Koshmrl, 2020). The proposed
buyout was met with several lawsuits about the public financing of this acquisition and chal-
lenges to the airport for stifling competition at an airport financed in part from federal funds.
The board received rulings from the courts that they could proceed by declaring their rights to a
proprietary exclusive FBO operation run by airport staff. However, two years had elapsed during
the court process, and the airport and FBO could not come to agreement on a three-year buyout
plan. The board instead decided to wait until expiration of the existing FBO lease, which took

place in 2023. Since no immediate buyout agreement was signed, Wyoming Jet Center made
another proposal for a second FBO. This second proposed FBO was not built because of cost
and the fact that only a few months remained on the existing FBO’s lease when the airport took
over FBO functions.
Enduring COVID-19 Impacts Affecting FBOs

Many of the trends observed in the three years since ACRP Synthesis 108 was published were
already in place prior to the pandemic. COVID-19 intensified some of these issues and intro-
duced other challenges for FBOs. Five pandemic-related impacts continue today as airports and
FBOs deal with the aviation recovery and its aftermath. These are:
• Workforce shortages and recruitment.
• Remote work as a permanent feature of the workplace.
• Health and safety practices.
• Emphasis on alternate FBO revenue streams.
• Use of contract workers and vendor partnerships or agreements.
Each is discussed in the next sections.
Workforce Shortages and Recruitment

The pandemic brought out divisions within the U.S. workforce. Many
lower-paying service jobs required employees to show up at the workplace, For the first time, five distinct
often for long hours, and endure the highest COVID exposure conditions. generations of employees coexist
This was true of hospital workers as well as ground service and customer in the workplace. . . . Gen Z’ers
service personnel at FBOs. Industries highly affected by COVID experienced love a work–life balance and
both less-attractive working conditions and the need for more staff during flexible work schedules. Millennials
the pandemic. As the country adjusts to living with COVID and recovers, and Gen Z’ers are attracted to
a tight labor market has persisted across the economy for a variety of reasons: companies that are ecologically
• Older adults still in the workforce decided to retire during the pandemic, savvy and friendly. . . .
leaving their jobs and years of experience. Hughes, 2020
• Inflation increased the cost of living; workers need and want more money.
• The Great Resignation may have been brought about by a Great
Reevaluation—in turn caused by “epiphany quitters” in a tight labor market
with other job options.
• Health concerns and vaccine hesitancies linger, especially for jobs that face the public.
• High costs for childcare may discourage some workers from returning to work in lower-
paying jobs.
• Slowing immigration could be affecting the labor shortage.
• There may be a structural mismatch between job openings and workers with the right skills.
Labor and other supply-side shortages were present prior to 2020, but the pandemic crystal-
lized them. Requirements for aviation safety made the labor shortage problem hit this sector
particularly hard. The aviation industry has labor shortages in every category of work for many
sectors: commercial airlines; TSA; airports; concessionaires and vendors; maintenance, repair,
and overhaul (MRO); and private aviation. FBOs typically operate with a lean staff to handle
line services; fuel quality control, fuel trucks, and aircraft fueling; towing; ramp management;
ground handling; fire safety; aircraft flight coordination; and customer service and communica-
tions. Many airports or FBOs function with fewer than 10 full-time-equivalent employees. Labor
shortages in these instances can have a large impact on operations.

Recruitment for new FBO hires has its challenges. Even entry-level positions require consid-
erable training and experience to safely perform duties. If the FBO offers aircraft and avionic
repairs, mechanics and technicians must graduate from an FAA-approved school, have 18 to
30 months of practical experience, and successfully complete oral and practical tests prior to FAA
certification. There are good resources to supplement on-the-job training, such as the National
Air Transportation Association (NATA) Safety 1st Training Center and International Standard
for Business Aircraft Operations program, but new recruits must be willing to train for the job.
At one time, aviation jobs carried a wage premium. Today, FBOs are competing with other
service industries and retail to hire and retain workers. Airlines are recruiting airframe and
powerplant graduates right out of school and pilots from the regional airlines. For publicly
owned FBOs, established civil service wages sometimes make it difficult to compete with entry-
level positions in other industries.
The challenge to competitively attract and retain employees in a tight labor market requires
new solutions. Many FBO operators have embraced attractive sign-on packages for entry-level
jobs that include sign-up and referral bonuses, flex hours, relocation packages, 100% payment of
medical insurance, 401K matching contributions, and sometimes a housing allowance. Jackson
Hole Airport offers many of these benefits to its workers because the high cost of living in the
area was a deterrent to workers from other places. Overall, the higher-wage and inflationary
environment has affected FBO operating costs, since wage increases for new recruits have also
required FBOs to increase wages for existing employees.
According to Dan Rutherford, manager of marketing and business development for Canadian
Fast Air, “in the FBO world. . . compensation, culture, and flexibility” are the keys to “employing
the incoming and current workforce” (Epstein, April 2022).
FBOs have also addressed labor shortages with more flexible solutions, such as requiring
employees to work longer hours (sometime four 10-hour days) or shortening hours of FBO
operations altogether.
Remote Work as a Permanent Feature of the Workplace

COVID-19 expanded the option for private aviation to a broader base of customers who had
high disposable income or the ability to work remotely for extended periods of time. Charter
operators offered air travelers the tools to purchase space on private jets without making long-
term commitments. These tools included subscription fees and jet cards. New mobile applica-
tions allowed access to real-time availability, pricing, and reservations. For the operators, these
tools made it possible to fill empty-leg flights (Ollek et al., 2020). Families and friends could share
charters for per-seat costs that were roughly equivalent to first-class seats on a commercial flight.
Changes to FBO Health and Safety Practices

While life after COVID-19 is yet to fully return to normal, general aviation airports and FBOs
have made health and safety adjustments that may reflect a new normal.
New practices instituted during the pandemic include:
• Compressed shifts. During the pandemic, shift work changed. Some FBOs divided their staff
into two discrete teams that do not overlap. These schedules make it possible for employees
to enjoy three consecutive days off. Because of positive reviews, these schedule changes have
become permanent at some FBOs.
• Better sanitation. Pilot lounges before COVID offered visitors snacks such as plates of warm
cookies or popcorn. These open food offerings were replaced with pre-packaged single-serve

Table 12. Changes in aircraft operations, March

2020 to April 2020.
Month Air Carrier Air Taxi Itinerant Civil Military

Mar. 2020 1,182,273 481,676 905,028 969,988 185,904
Apr. 2020 442,998 216,052 621,558 616,921 157,555
Change −63% −55% −31% −36% −15%
Source: Compiled from Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS), 2022
https://aspm.faa.gov/opsnet/sys/Airport.asp.
snacks and water from touchless dispensers. Additional janitorial cleaning regimes were also
implemented.
• Remote options for back-office workers. The pandemic also revealed which jobs required
customer contact. For those that do not interact with customers, such as back-office account-
ing, the pandemic set in motion greater flexibility for remote work, freeing up additional space
at the FBO facility (Wilson, 2021).
Emphasis on Alternate FBO Revenue Streams

FBOs typically have a variety of revenue streams, including from fuel, hangar rent, and con-
cession fees from rental cars. Some FBOs have ground leases and revenue-sharing arrangements
with on-airport businesses. The FBOs rent office space and manage fuel farms for commercial
airlines. Spot fuel sales and temporary hangars for military aircraft, medical airlift, firefighting
staging, and search and rescue can also bring in additional revenues.
One impact of COVID-19 is a renewed appreciation of income-producing real estate assets.
FBOs that supported businesses that closed or events that were cancelled experienced dimin-
ished fuel sales. These FBO operators noted that while fuel revenues were dwindling, alternate
sources of operating revenue were steady.
Use of Contract Workers and Vendor Partnerships and Agreements

Table 12 shows the extent of declines in aviation activity between March and April 2020.
FBOs tried to limit losses by reducing service contracts and employee hours. Paycheck Protec-
tion Program grants subsequently helped to keep employees on the payroll, but the pandemic
also pushed FBOs in a direction already established before COVID-19—that of unbundling
FBO services and of greater reliance upon on-airport vendors or in-network partners to provide
third-party services instead of offering those services in-house.
Ongoing FBO Challenges

Addressing Rising Costs and Fuel Margins
Rising costs for staffing, insurance, utilities, and construction have squeezed margins for
FBOs. For most high-volume fuel customers, FBOs offer fixed margins (upload fees) over the
wholesale cost of fuel. These cost-plus contracts are typically set each year with the fuel supplier.
Upload fees are based on an airport or FBO’s cost structure. The going rate offered by nearby
competitors for these upload fees is also often influential. For FBOs that sell contract fuel, these
upload fees are the net fuel revenues for contract customers. Airport tenants also receive fuel dis-
counts. Smaller GA airports that purchase fuel on the spot market continue to experience delays
in fuel supplies, because there have been ongoing shortages of drivers to deliver fuel to airports.

The FBO business model includes a tradition of providing services for free in exchange for
purchasing fuel by volume. These discounts are widely practiced and include reduced ramp or
aircraft parking fees and facility fees with fuel purchases. In addition, FBO line services also
include baggage services, trash removal, galley and concierge services, pilot lounges or quiet
rooms, Wi-Fi, and courtesy cars for little or no cost. Figure 23 shows a sample of discounts
available at San Bernardino International Airport, a highly competitive airport 60 miles east of
Los Angeles.
In this inflationary environment, FBOs may need to think about ways to offset increasing
costs. These could include living wage fees attached to invoices. This fee is widely in practice
FUEL DISCOUNTS
Fuel Purchase Volume Discounts (Single Purchase)

Aircraft owners/operators may enter into bulk fuel purchase agreements with San Bernardino
International Airport Authority for additional fuel price discounts.
400 gallons $0.20 discount per gallon
1,000 gallons $0.30 discount per gallon
PARKING
Parking fees for aircraft NOT exceeding 12,500 lbs. certified gross landing weight (more than 2 hours,
not exceeding 24 hours) parked on the Luxivair SBD ramp:
Parking Fee Fuel Purchase Required to Waive Parking Fee
Single-Engine $10 15 gallons
Multi-engine/ $15 25 gallons

Piston Helicopter
Jet/Turbine Helicopter $25 40 gallons
Parking fees for aircraft exceeding 12,500 lbs. certified gross landing weight (more than 2 hours, not
exceeding 24 hours) parked on the Luxivair SBD ramp:
Group Aircraft Length Parking Fee Fuel Purchase Required to
Waive Parking Fee
IA Less than 50 feet $60 100 gallons
IB 51–90 feet $70 300 gallons
II 91–125 feet $90 500 gallons
Source: San Bernadino International Airport, 2022.
Figure 23. Sample of San Bernardino’s Luxivair SBD pricing policy for fiscal year
2022–2023.

at restaurants. Alternatively, John Enticknap and Ron Jackson have proposed a three-tier FBO
pricing system:
• Tier 1: Full-service pricing. Pay the full posted price and get all services included.
• Tier 2: Basic fuel service with a la carte pricing. Receive a discount off the posted or contract
fuel price. Then pay for all ancillary services requested. If no services are requested, then pay
a facilities fee.
• Tier 3: No fuel purchase. Pay a ramp fee, facilities fee, and a la carte pricing for requested
services (Enticknap and Jackson, 2020).
Hangar Shortages
According to JetNet data, “the U.S. business jet fleet increased by 34% with a physical footprint
increase of 27.5 million square feet between 2010 and 2020” (Grossman, 2022). That trend accel-
erated during the pandemic and magnified the shortage of hangar space.
Aircraft hangars and their construction are subject to unusual market forces. At many air-
ports, there is a large inventory of box hangars and T-hangars constructed 30 or 40 years ago.
Some of those hangars were built by the military or by the airport. Others were developed pri-
vately on a ground lease from the airport sponsor. As the buildings aged, many languished in the
last years of the leases and ultimately reverted back to airport ownership. This group of hangars
is old, sometimes in disrepair, and sized to a generation of aircraft that are retired or at the end of
their usable life. These hangars occupy valuable land at an airport and, because of their age, are
often rented at below-market rates. To renovate these hangars, they must be brought up to cur-
rent building codes, usually at a high cost. Demolition can be a financial challenge as well, given
the presence of environmental hazards. Consequently, many of these older hangars remain in the
inventory and tend to suppress market rates for hangar rentals in the region.
New hangars are built primarily by FBOs or hangar developers. There is relatively little public
funding for hangar construction, because this use has a low funding priority with the FAA. Some
state governments will fund hangars. It is common for FBOs to construct hangars as part of their
required leasehold capital improvement. Other developers are building hangars on speculation
to lease or sell. Several hangar projects are being developed in destination markets following
increased cabin-class jet activity at those locations. There are also hangar developments at
second-tier airports close to metropolitan airports, where land is more available. For example,
in the Los Angeles area, in 2021 there were real estate transactions for a 63,000-square-foot hangar
at Hollywood Burbank Airport (BUR); 27 hangars at John Wayne Airport (SNA), in Orange
County; and outside Seattle, an 18,000-square-foot hangar at Paine Field (PAE). Some airports
are seeing development of luxury hangars that include adjoining offices and kitchens and offer
line services such as handling, fueling, cleaning, and detailing (Kamin, 2022).
Hangar revenues can be a future hedge or offset for declining fuel profits. Especially with large
FBO chains owned by private equity firms, new hangar development has shifted business strate-
gies to focus more on real estate and resale values. There is also a push for optimizing hangar
pricing by making it consistent and at market rates.
Ownership and management of hangars can include different groups:
• Airport sponsors may own hangars built with public money or obtained through reversion
clauses at the end of a lease. Sponsors can manage their hangars directly or through contract
managers, or delegate to the FBO as part of a lease agreement.
• FBOs develop hangars and rent or lease them out.
• Private aircraft owners have a ground lease with the airport and build an individual hangar.

• Developers build multiple hangars, which are either managed by a company or sold as hangar
condominiums.
• Charter operators and fractional owners build or lease hangar facilities.
The hangar supply–demand equation is highly localized. Many airports and FBOs have hangar
wait lists if they are operating at capacity, but many of those lists are not regularly maintained.
Consequently, waitlists are often unverified expressions of demand for hangars at a specific
airport.
Another factor in hangar availability is the matching of hangar size to aircraft. Where the gen-
eral aviation fleet is still dominated by smaller piston aircraft, newer aircraft—especially cabin-
class aircraft—are often longer, wider, or heavier and do not always fit in existing and available
hangar inventories.
Hangar Foam Fire Suppression Systems

One issue that is a significant cost component for larger hangars (≥ 40,000 square ft) is
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 409 standard, which recommends that large
hangars have fire suppression systems. The standard was established 70 years ago, when aircraft
hangars were more highly valued than the aircraft themselves. Today the reverse is true. In
1984, NFPA recommended inclusion of foam fire suppression systems in community hangars.
Industry experts claim that today’s aircraft construction has all but eliminated leaky aircraft
wing tanks, and refined jet fuel has higher ignition points, lowering the risk of a fuel spill fire
(Epstein, June 2020).
NATA commissioned a study to examine the history of foam discharge systems in aircraft
hangars. According to the study, prepared by the University of Maryland’s Department of Fire
Protection Engineering, there were at least 137 reported accidental foam discharges from 2004
to 2019. Accidental foam discharges can fill a hangar with a thick layer of foam 10 feet high,
potentially spilling out onto the ramp. The study estimates that cleanup costs and damages of
accidental foam discharges averaged $6.4 million annually, while the cost for foam discharges in
response to actual fires was $1.7 million (Milke et al., 2019). Foam fire suppression systems also
use “forever chemicals,” which are hard to remove and potentially hazardous.
The 2022 revised NFPA standard on hangars incorporates changes proposed and supported
by NATA, providing aviation businesses significant tools to protect against fire without the use
of foam fire suppression systems. The 2022 edition contains provisions that:
• Create an alternative, performance-based design process allowing modification of any part of
the NFPA 409 standard.
• Create a risk assessment process that allows businesses to propose alternative fire protection
schemes, with or without foam.
• Exempt Group II hangars that prohibit hazardous activities from foam requirements.
• Approve the use of ignitable-liquid floor drainage systems in lieu of foam systems.
The EPA is also considering a proposal to designate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Envi-
ronmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, which created the Superfund
program. This proposed rulemaking would increase transparency around releases of these harm-
ful chemicals and help to hold polluters accountable for cleaning up their contamination. Fire-
fighting foam contains these chemicals. An EPA designation on PFOA and PFOS would have
important consequences and potential liabilities for aviation businesses that use these fire sup-
pression systems, unless the EPA exempts aircraft hangars from the ruling (Castagna, 2022).
No decision on the rulemaking had been announced as of January 2023.

The fire protection industry is undergoing a significant shift to fluorine-free foam concentrates.
The revised NFPA 409 may provide some hangar developers with an alternate solution to the
costly replacement of foam concentrate. NATA has been active in fire safety for aviation businesses
and has assembled a toolkit that includes up-to-date summaries of revised fire protection regula-
tions and rulemaking decisions (NATA, 2020). In addition, NATA has published a document that
outlines the steps to select an appropriate fire protection system (NATA, 2022).
The construction of aircraft hangars is ultimately guided by local building codes. Often cities
and counties adopt NFPA standards as part of their building code. In some places, early versions
of NFPA’s 409 standard are embedded in local building codes and may require updating to the
newer, more-flexible standards.
New Larger and Heavy Private Aircraft Require Additional

Ramp Space and Capable Ground Support Equipment
As service providers to private aircraft, FBOs require various ground support equipment
(GSE) to handle different aircraft. While every FBO has its own GSE, a basic set might include:
• Fuel trucks.
• Direct current ground power.
• Safety cones.
• Nitrogen service for tires.
• Oxygen service for cabins.
• Cabin air conditioning units (southern climates).
• Lavatory cart.
• Potable water cart.
• Adjustable, portable stairs.
• Ladders.
• De-icing capability (northern climates).
• Multi-function tow bars.
• Tugs with different drawbar capacity.
• Well-trained line service employees (Smith, 2019).
FBOs are usually set up with GSE to handle most aircraft. However, with the growth of private
jet activity and the presence of larger aircraft, some FBOs do not have equipment such as tow bars
and tugs that can handle the super-midsize business jets and large, heavy “bizliner” jets such as
the Bombardier Global 7500. Wear and tear on GSE equipment and the capital expenditures to
acquire the proper GSE equipment for these aircraft can represent an added cost for FBOs. These
large aircraft also need more ramp space. Parking this new generation of longer and heavier
cabin-class aircraft has resulted in crowded ramps and the need for additional aircraft parking
space at some airports.
Working Within the Airport Operating Environment

The airport operating environment includes not only an airport’s infrastructure but also the air-
port’s leasing policies and requirements as well as minimum standards. These guiding documents
influence the mix of services offered by an FBO, the terms of the lease, valuation of the property,
and operational conditions. They also factor into an acquisition decision to take over an FBO.
Minimum Standards
Minimum standards for FBOs outline the physical requirements (building and ramp space),
pilot and passenger amenities, and required specialized aircraft or training services to be offered.

They typically articulate the application requirements and the airport sponsor review and deci-
sion process (Kramer, 2020).
Minimum standards are useful tools for the airport to control development. Because market
conditions have changed and FBOs are handling the mix of services offered in different ways
today, it is important for airport management to review minimum standards every three to five
years to make sure that the standards also meet current market conditions.
FBO Lease Assignments, Reasonable Fees, and Transfers

Over the past 20 years, both FBO lessees and airport sponsors have come to understand the
underlying value of existing long-term ground leases accompanied by low lease rates. Many
long-term leases crafted 30 to 40 years ago became valuable assignment opportunities for FBO
operators ready to sell. Often airport sponsors expressly state in leases that assignment of a lease,
improvements, and subleasing of leased premises must have written consent by the sponsor.
Sometimes there is negotiated fee due to the airport or a commitment for development projects
when a lease renews, or sometimes an assumption or sublease transaction takes place (Kramer
et al., 2018). However, more than a few airport sponsors remained on the sidelines as lease
assignments transferred FBO assets to new operators, often at high premiums.
A decade without recession followed by an uptick of private jet activity has helped to support
high valuations of real estate and leaseholds at some airports and has raised the bar of entry at
larger FBO markets. These high valuations have changed the feasibility equation for FBO sales
and necessitated increased capital to complete transactions. They also help to explain why many
of the large FBO chains are now owned by private equity funds, infrastructure funds, and SPACs.
According to William Blair Research, these investment funds often consider initial purchases of
four or five FBOs in one transaction to establish a scalable platform. Once the funds are engaged
in the FBO business, they can add to existing platforms with smaller transactions. This is exactly
the pattern for recent acquisitions of one or two additional FBOs at a time. Evaluation factors
considered for a potential FBO transaction are:
• Are there 10 or more years left on the existing FBO lease?
• What capital improvements are required before the end of the lease?
• How favorable are the lease terms (e.g., rent escalators and guaranteed extensions for capital
improvements)?
• Is there competition on the airfield and at nearby airports?
• What is the location of the FBO on the airfield (especially if there is a second FBO)?
• What is the mix of FBO services (e.g., fueling and hangars, maintenance, MRO, charter and
aircraft management)?
• What are the fuel sales trends, the mix of customers, and fuel margins?
• Is there synergy between this FBO and the buyer’s existing network of FBOs? Are there oppor-
tunities to reduce administrative costs?
• What are the proposed buyout details (e.g., payments, stock, cashless mergers, and earnouts)
(Ollek et al., 2020)?
Community Engagement
Airports are extensions of communities and as such reflect the values and concerns of those
that live near an airport. One interesting impact of COVID-19 was the immediate decline in air-
craft (and automobile) noise resulting from the shutdowns that began in March 2020. Following
this period of relative quiet brought on by the pandemic, with the resumption of aviation activity
many airports received an upsurge in noise complaints.
Voluntary curfews and recent community interest in ending the sale of leaded fuel are two
examples of ongoing community involvement in local airport operations.

Voluntary Curfews
Aircraft noise at downtown Naples Airport (NAA) has always been a high-profile commu-
nity issue. Efforts by Naples Airport Authority date back to the first airport master plan in the
1970s. Since that time, the authority has banned Stage 1 and Stage 2 jets from the airport and has
instituted a voluntary curfew every night from 10PM to 7AM. Mostly the airport sees curfew
violations 30 minutes after 10PM and 30 minutes before 7AM. The airport posts these violations
on its website with the names and phone numbers of offenders. While the quiet hours curfew is
voluntary, this approach has been quite effective, and Naples Airport reports 98% compliance
with its curfew (Naples Airport, 2023).
The FAA does not permit mandatory curfews. This ruling was tested in East Hampton,
New York, where the town board of supervisors voted to stop receiving federal funding as of
September 2021 and to either close the airport permanently or reopen as a private airport that
could limit operations to certain aircraft and implement a mandatory curfew. These actions
drew many lawsuits, and after meeting with the FAA, the board decided to delay closure of the
airport. In October 2022, Suffolk County Judge Paul Baisley ruled against the town, saying it
“acted both beyond its legal abilities and in an arbitrary and capricious manner” when making
its privatization plan (Kesslen, 2022).
Bans on Leaded Avgas

San Martin Airport (E16) and Reid–Hillview Airport (RHV) in Santa Clara County, California,
banned the sale of 100LL, a grade of leaded Avgas, at their respective airports. This triggered a
part 16 complaint filed with the FAA by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, arguing that
a ban of the sale of 100LL caused safety issues for pilots and violated Santa Clara County’s grant
assurances with the FAA (misfueling aircraft with UL94, an unleaded grade, can cause the aircraft
to crash). The part 16 complaint was the latest issue between the FAA, the flying community,
and the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors, who are on record as wanting to close the airport and
repurpose the land.
Looking Ahead
The FBO industry is a nimble adapter to changes in the market environment. This section
briefly addresses the outlook for additional changes in FBO ownership, new fuel products, and
prospects for electric aircraft and AAM to use FBO services.
FBO Ownership Changes

As noted earlier, there have been three waves of FBO ownership changes, which coincided
with expirations of long-term FBO leases, then recovery from the Great Recession in 2008, and
most recently the COVID-19 pandemic. During these waves, some smaller FBOs were turned
over to airport sponsors; some larger airports decided to operate their FBOs and exercise their
proprietary exclusive rights; and a considerable number of private FBOs were acquired by private
equity firms and infrastructure funds interested in building scalable networks of FBOs.
FBO takeovers in the public sector will likely continue, as will merger and acquisition activity.
Jackson Hole Airport (JAC) assumed control of its FBO in April 2023. Other airport sponsors
are likely to take over and operate FBOs. That said, these public ownership changes are harder to
anticipate because they happen one at a time.
Expanded charter and fractional operators and new owners of private aircraft have contrib-
uted to demand for FBO services and brought attention to FBOs as investable assets. While some
in the industry believe that the low-hanging fruit has been picked, many well-run independent
FBOs remain that operate one to three locations and could be the next acquisition targets.

The increase in private aviation was also noticed by the mainline carriers. Delta Airlines began
a relationship with Wheels Up to offer private aviation to its premium customers. Passengers
using JSX airlines can earn United miles. Are the airlines the next group to acquire whole or par-
tial interest in charters or fractional operators and FBOs? The prospect of further consolidation
among different sectors of aviation appears likely.
New Fuels
Unleaded Avgas
As of January 2023, there were two approved producers of unleaded Avgas: Swift Fuels pro-
ducing UL94 and General Aviation Modifications, Inc., producing G100UL. Swift Fuels was the
first to gain approval by the FAA for its UL94. This fuel works in approximately 66% of piston
aircraft. In the fuel tanks of these aircraft, 100LL and UL94 can be commingled, but because not
all piston aircraft can use Swift UL94, fuel tanks on the ground cannot mix these fuels. Conse-
quently, an FBO offering UL94 fuel must maintain and dispense this fuel separately from 100LL.
UL94 needs its own storage tanks, self-service fuel dispensers, and fuel trucks. The FAA has also
approved G100UL. This fuel works in nearly all piston aircraft and thus has wider application.
That said, in early 2023, G100UL has limited distribution.
Since the Avgas market is small compared with the jet fuel market, there is likely to be con-
solidation around which unleaded Avgas products will become widely available. Currently, the
development and approval process for unleaded Avgas is guided by a public-private partnership:
EAGLE (Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions), led by the FAA with the goal of eliminat-
ing lead emissions from GA aircraft by 2030. The effort has four pillars:
1. Develop Unleaded Fuels Infrastructure and Assess Commercial Viability: Industry stakeholders will
coordinate production of commercially viable unleaded fuels and establish necessary infrastructure,
efficient distribution channels and widespread usage of these fuels.
2. Support Research and Development and Technology Innovations: The FAA and industry stake-
holders will support research and testing of piston engine modifications and/or engine retrofits nec-
essary for unleaded fuel operations. They will also focus on new technology development and the
application/adaptation of those technologies, including electric/hybrid engine technologies to enable
transition to a lead free General Aviation fleet.
3. Continue to Evaluate and Authorize Safe Unleaded Fuels: The FAA will address fleet-wide authoriza-
tion of unleaded aviation fuels of different octane levels. Piston Aviation Fuel Initiative will continue to
evaluate, test and qualify high-octane aviation unleaded fuels with the objective to ultimately transition
the fleet to unleaded aviation fuel.
4. Establish Any Necessary Policies: The EPA is evaluating whether emissions from piston-engine aircraft
operating on leaded fuel contribute to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare. EPA plans
to issue a proposal for public review and comment in 2022 and take final action in 2023. If the EPA
issues regulations on lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft, the FAA would subsequently publish
regulations that certify piston engine modifications, new piston engines that do not require leaded avia-
tion fuel, and regulate fuel components for aviation fuels. The FAA will consider policies/programs to
support unleaded fuel infrastructure. (FAA, February 2022)
Even as this process continues, FBOs are selling unleaded aviation gasoline and will be in a
position to provide insight to EAGLE about best practices for selling these products.
Wisconsin was the first state to offer unleaded Avgas in 2016. Since then, several GA airports
in California have introduced unleaded Avgas as a fueling option. Santa Monica Airport (SMO)
was the first airport in Southern California to offer UL94 at its self-service island. In August 2022,
The Park VNY and Signature Flight Support at Van Nuys Airport (VNY) started offering the

product in addition to 100LL. To encourage purchase of the unleaded product, the Los Angeles
Board of Airport Commissioners, which oversees VNY, voted to waive its 11-cents-per-gallon
delivery fee on unleaded fuel through 2024. Long Beach City Council is also considering offering
unleaded Avgas at its airport (Staggs, 2022). In the Bay Area, UL94 is available at San Carlos Air-
port (SQL) and Watsonville Municipal Airport (WVI) for a $0.50–$1.00 premium over 100LL
(AirNav, 2022).
Sustainable Aviation Fuel

Jet biofuels are in similar stages of development to unleaded Avgas. Sustainable aviation fuel
(SAF) is a low-carbon alternative to conventional petroleum-based jet fuel. Biofuels are made by
converting readily available feedstocks into a drop-in replacement for crude oil. Current feed-
stocks include used cooking oil, mustard seeds, non-edible oils, and animal fats. The U.S. DOE’s
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy lists other resources as potential feedstocks:
corn grain, agricultural and forestry residues, wood mill waste, municipal solid waste streams,
manures, wastewater treatment sludge, and dedicated energy crops (U.S. DOE, n.d.).
As shown in Figure 24, these products are refined into a chemically identical petroleum-based
diesel fuel that can be blended with jet fuel without any changes to aircraft technology.
Among the challenges in producing SAF are collecting and processing sufficient feedstock.
Certain FBOs have started to sell blended jet fuel products. The highest allowable blend for any
SAF is currently 50% Jet A and 50% SAF, although most commercial jet fuel blends use lower
proportions of SAF. Engines are being tested on 100% unblended SAF, including engines for
business jets. The expectation is that 100% SAF will be certified for use in aircraft in the near
future. As of November 2022, Signature Flight Support was offering SAF blended with Jet A at
the following U.S. airports:
• Austin–Bergstrom International Airport (AUS), Texas
• Eagle County Regional Airport (EGE), Colorado
• William P. Hobby Airport (HOU), Texas
• King County International Airport—Boeing Field (BFI), Washington
• Mobile International Airport (BFM), Alabama
• Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC), California
• Oakland International Airport (OAK), California
• San Francisco International Airport (SFO), California
• Van Nuys Airport (VNY), California
Source: Honeywell, n.d.
Figure 24. Overview of sustainable aviation fuel.

Atlantic Aviation is offering SAF at Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (ASE), Colorado; SJC, and
Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport (TRM), in Thermal, California (Riverside County). Both
FBOs at Monterey Regional Airport (MRY), California, also offer SAF.
In general, the availability of SAF is growing in importance and use as more FBOs carry the
blended product and commercial airlines like United, Delta, and Jet Blue incorporate the product
into their fueling programs.
Hydrogen Fuel
Hydrogen fuel cells already power automobiles, transit buses, and unmanned aircraft. Honeywell
anticipates that the use of conventional jet fuel will disappear in the next 20 to 30 years. Accord-
ing to Phil Robinson, senior director of zero-emission aviation at Honeywell, “hydrogen can be
used for all-electric and hybrid-electric propulsion systems and auxiliary power units, with water
as the only by-product” (Honeywell, 2022). While hydrogen cells are cleaner than fossil fuels,
not all hydrogen (or electricity) is created equal. How these sources of power are manufactured
makes a big difference in their environmental footprint. Ideally, hydrogen and electricity would
be produced using renewable sources like solar or wind power. Traditionally hydrogen and elec-
tricity have been produced from petroleum sources, such as natural gas or coal.
Aircraft manufacturers are investigating the potential for hydrogen propulsion systems. Air-
bus is working on a liquid-hydrogen propulsion system for its A380. Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH
plans to test a Dornier 328 powered by a hydrogen fuel cell in 2025. One challenge is that jet fuel
has four times the volumetric energy density of hydrogen, so fuel tanks on aircraft with hydrogen
propulsion systems must be much larger (Honeywell, 2022).
Advanced Air Mobility

According to BAE Systems, advanced air mobility “is an air transport system concept that
integrates new, transformational aircraft designs and flight technologies into existing and modi-
fied airspace operations. The objective of AAM is to move people and cargo in short haul markets
(< 250 miles, including last mile transport) in a more environmentally friendly and low-cost
manner” (BAE Systems, n.d.).
An early entry in the AAM category, drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), were devel-
oped by the military. UAVs are now used in civilian applications such as pipeline monitoring,
videography, small-package delivery, and transfer of medical supplies. More recently, private
capital has flowed into extensive research and development of larger versions of UAVs and elec-
tric aircraft. These AAM initiatives have support and have caused “electric excitement” in many
sectors of aviation—airports, FBOs, ground infrastructure developers, utility companies, and the
manufacturers of aircraft, energy equipment, and battery storage. AAMs hold promise to reduce:
• Fuel and maintenance costs.
• Emissions in aircraft, especially for short-haul markets.
• Noise, especially for airports close to city centers where aircraft noise is a perennial issue.
AAMs offer an alternative to urban ground transport that could reduce costs and travel time.
In that sense, AAMs make economic sense as a new solution in short-haul air travel markets
(< 250 miles). Air carriers have exited the short-haul market in large part because of high costs
per passenger and high carbon dioxide emissions when regional aircraft are utilized (Schwab
et al., 2021). Labor shortages during the pandemic also accelerated the loss of air service in
spoke-to-hub airport markets.
Interest in AAM has been amplified by real advances in small all-electric aircraft and progress
with battery technology and charging infrastructure. Several mainline carriers, FBOs, and frac-
tional fleet operators have announced partnerships with AAM aircraft manufacturers.

To understand how AAM may develop, it is important to briefly describe how aircraft elec-
trification is likely to roll out and what some of the barriers and challenges to implementation
and adoption are. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory describes the trajectory of aircraft
electrification as follows:
• 2020–2025: Early stages of aircraft electrification are underway. Pilot training is taking place
now on small aircraft capable of carrying a pilot and one passenger and flying at speeds of
125 mph. Some companies are also developing electric aircraft that would carry up to six pas-
sengers for an average flight time of less than one hour.
• 2025–2040: The projected medium-term developments include electric vertical takeoff and
landing (eVTOL) aircraft (with a range of 20 to 50 miles and capacity to carry 4 passengers)
and small regional (up to 15 passengers) electric aircraft. These aircraft would operate as
air taxis, regional commuters, and light cargo carriers. Many companies are working in
this area. United Airlines has announced a partnership with an original equipment manu-
facturer (OEM) to investigate opportunities for electric aircraft to provide spoke services
into United’s hub airports. UPS is working with an OEM with plans to electrify some of its
cargo routes. Electric aircraft developer Joby Aviation announced a partnership in July 2021
with JetBlue and Signature Flight Support to anchor a market for aviation carbon credits
(Carey, 2022).
• 2040–2050: Longer term, companies are working on the development of a single-aisle aircraft
with approximately 70 seats with electric or hybrid capability.
In what now is a horse race in research and development, other notable participants include
the engine and airframe manufacturers.
Much of the early research was devoted to ground-based transportation technologies, suggest-
ing that initial adoption of electrification will start at airports with airside and landside ground
vehicles. This is a critical first step and will help to focus on long-term electric generation needs.
It is also true that if adoption of electric vehicles is widespread in communities, electrical capacity
and charging stations will become a regional issue involving local and state governments, utilities,
airports, airlines, and FBOs. Fortunately for some airports, available land may make it possible to
build on-site electric generation and energy storage that will support existing airport operations
and charging stations for vehicles and aircraft.
Much remains to be solved to support the electrification of aircraft. Aircraft batteries will
require chargers with power ratings that exceed the ratings of current technology. These battery
chargers are likely to require aircraft-specific specifications. No charging station connections
and standards have yet been established for aircraft. It may turn out that hydrogen technology
is better suited for larger electric aircraft than traditional lithium batteries. There is much to be
worked out in terms of battery technologies, charging infrastructure, and the abilities of local
electrical grid structures to support new levels of demand (Schwab et al., 2021).
This emerging AAM segment presents an opportunity for both airports and FBOs to scale
up their capabilities. Some vertiport developers in the United States are thinking about eVTOL
stations as standalone facilities, but initially airports and FBOs are also likely to support AAM
operations as another type of aircraft requiring line services, MRO, hangars, and fuel. Different
scenarios to recharge electric aircraft from fixed locations include by portable electric charging
stations on a ramp or by battery swaps.
FBO Clay Lacy Aviation made an agreement with Eviation in September 2021 to provide
charging and maintenance for its nine-passenger electric aircraft. BLADE entered into an agree-
ment with Ross Aviation (now Atlantic Aviation) to work together on a vertiport located at
Westchester County Airport (HPN), New York. The vertiport will include a facility to hangar,
charge, and deploy eVTOL aircraft (Carey, 2022).

The advent of electric aircraft does add complexity to ramp management depending on how
electricity will be supplied. Will power be brought to the aircraft, or will the aircraft park at a
charging station? How will an FBO or airport charge for electricity? What additional fire sup-
pression resources are needed to put out a battery fire?
AAM has all the characteristics of a startup operation in which small companies are carrying
out research and development supported by established companies in the air transport business.
Infrastructure planning has long lead times, as do increases in electrical capacity. In this sense,
while AAM on significant scales is a few years out, it is prudent for airports and FBOs to stay
current on these developments for when AAM becomes a reality.
Wrap-Up on FBO Trends

Private aviation and air cargo were the brightest spots in the industry during the pandemic.
Increased activity led to higher valuations for FBOs and a wave of consolidation among the larger
FBO chains. New participants in private aviation purchased used aircraft in record numbers,
reducing inventory to a historic low and raising aircraft valuations to an all-time high. In addi-
tion, charter and fractional operators offered attractive lower-cost products that do not require a
long-term commitment for those not ready or interested in owning an aircraft. The ability to travel
in private aircraft offered some protection from COVID-19. Increased private jet activity also led
to higher demand for fuel and services at the larger FBOs. For FBOs that served air-reliant busi-
nesses such as banks and grocery store chains, demand for fuel and other FBO services remained
solid. Traffic to destination markets in Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming
experienced rapid growth as well as new FBO interest and investment. Airports with flight schools,
as essential services, also prospered during this time.
Year-over-year growth in private aviation between 2021 and 2022 is unlikely to be replicated,
even if the group of first-timers acquiring aircraft or purchasing individual seats on charters stays
with private aviation instead of returning to commercial flights. Used aircraft transactions and
private flight activity did decline in 2023.
Nonetheless, the pandemic did leave its mark on aviation and FBOs. The large and second-
tier FBO chains increased locations. More of these FBO chains were acquired by private equity
firms and infrastructure funds. Workforce shortages have increased wages and improved benefit
packages for many employees. Hybrid and remote arrangements appear to be permanent for
back-of-the-house employees, who do not interact directly with the customers. Rising operating
costs and maintaining fuel margins remain challenges.
The pandemic also increased hangar development activity at some GA airports. Fire suppres-
sion systems required in larger hangars are under scrutiny for hazardous chemicals. Aviation orga-
nizations, including NATA, are working toward safer, more-practical fire suppression solutions.
The latest generation of large cabin-class aircraft are longer and heavier. Some FBOs report
that these aircraft can put extra load on existing GSE equipment (e.g., tow bars and tugs) and that
ramp space can become crowded because additional aircraft separations are required to handle
these larger aircraft.
Going forward, increased distribution of unleaded Avgas and SAF will improve the carbon
footprint of aircraft. Electric aircraft, battery, and infrastructure technologies are under develop-
ment and may present business opportunities for FBOs in a 5- to 20-year timeframe.

CHAPTER 4
FBO Survey Results
Quick Takes
The following bullet points summarize the FBO survey results.
• More than 700 FBOs were invited to participate in an online survey. There was a 5% response
rate from FBOs from 22 states. Half of the respondents were private FBOs and half were pub-
licly owned FBOs, with a balanced distribution of FBO size.
• FBOs reported a mixed experience with the pandemic. Some had increased flight school activ-
ity; some FBOs with non-branded fuel had some difficulty receiving timely fuel deliveries
because of driver shortages. Sprayers were choosing ground rigs over aircraft to save costs.
Destination markets coped with surging traffic and operations.
• There was FBO consensus on near-term challenges: rising prices and wages, hiring and retain-
ing staff, high construction costs, and hangar shortages.
• For FBOs not owned by private equity and real estate companies, funding for capital projects,
declining fuel margins, and user resistance to higher rates and charges are long-term concerns
for financial viability.
• FBOs have many questions about technical requirements for building infrastructure for elec-
trification and the FBO role in servicing electric aircraft, eVTOL hubs, and AAM; the timing
of these developments; and the investment required.
Introduction
As part of the study process for this synthesis, FBOs were contacted and invited to participate
in an online survey to gauge how recovery from the pandemic was going and if demand for FBO
services had shifted. The survey asked basic questions about FBO ownership and organization,
fuel sales, services, staffing, and customer mix. The survey also invited respondents to comment
on changes in their operations and challenges they encountered during the pandemic. Survey-
Monkey was the online platform used. A copy of the survey is presented in Appendix A.
The survey was conducted in July and August 2022. NATA sent invitations to its members that
operated FBOs. The invitation list included more than 700 FBO members. NATA sent out an
email to invite participation and followed up with two reminder emails. In addition, AAAE sent
invitations to members of its General Aviation Committee and Operations, Safety, Planning, and
Emergency Management Committee. The principal investigator for the survey personally invited
10 to 15 additional FBOs to participate and followed up.
In total, 37 FBOs responded with complete or partially complete surveys. The group repre-
sents mostly individual publicly owned or private FBOs.
49

Table 13. Survey respondent states and ownership.
State Private Airport University Total Responses

Alabama 1 1
Arizona 1 1
Arkansas 1 1
California 2 2
Colorado 1 1
Florida 2 3 5
Georgia 1 2 3
Illinois 2 2
Kansas 2 2
Mississippi 1 1
Montana 1 1 2
Nebraska 1 1
Nevada 1 1
New Hampshire 1 1
New York 1 1
North Carolina 1 1
Ohio 1 1
Oklahoma 1 1
Texas 1 2 3
Utah 1 1
West Virginia 1 1
Wyoming 2 2
Total 17 17 1 35
Survey Demographics
Survey respondents came from 22 states and were evenly mixed, with 17 private FBOs, 17 pub-
licly owned FBOs, and 1 university-owned FBO. Table 13 shows the distribution of respondents.
Of the private FBOs, five had multiple locations. Six FBOs had changed ownership in the past
five years. These were all private transactions except for one FBO, which was taken over by the
airport sponsor.
Fuel Sales
Thirty-three FBOs in the survey offer 100LL and Jet A for sale, either as self-service or full
service. None of the FBOs as of August 2022 were offering unleaded Avgas, SAF-blended jet
fuel, or Mogas. Table 14 reports on full-service and self-service fueling. Based on previous work
done for ACRP Synthesis 108, FBOs that only offer self-service 100LL appear underrepresented
in this survey.
Table 14. Types of fuel

offered for sale.
Full Service Self-Service

Jet A 33 6
100LL 31 13
Total Responses 33

FBO Survey Results 51
Table 15. Gallons of Jet A fuel sold in 2021.
Gallons of Jet A Respondents Percent

250,000 gallons or less 8 25
250,001–500,000 gallons 8 25
500,001–1,000,000 gallons 6 19
1,000,001–2,000,000 gallons 3 9
More than 2,000,000 gallons 7 22
Total Responses 32 100
Table 16. Jet A fuel sales in 2021 compared

to 2019.
Jet A Fuel Sales Respondents Percent

About the same as 2019 4 13
Lower than 2019 8 26
More than 2019 19 61
Table 15 shows the relative size of jet fuel sales for survey respondents. The sample is a bal-
anced representation of differently sized fueling operations.
Table 16 shows how FBOs responded when asked to compare the volume of Jet A fuel sold in
2021 with sales of that product in 2019. More than 60% reported higher jet fuel sales in 2021. The
other FBOs had about the same volume of fuel sales or lower.
Table 17 reports on 100LL fuel sales in 2021. It is noteworthy that so little 100LL was sold by
this group of FBOs—42% sold less than 50,000 gallons; two-thirds of respondents sold less than
150,000 gallons.
The fuel sales experience for 100LL during the pandemic is evenly divided, as Table 18 shows.
Thirty-two percent of respondents had in 2021 about the same fuel sales as in 2019, a little less than
one-third of FBOs sold fewer gallons of 100LL, and almost 40% of respondents were selling more
100LL than in 2019.
Table 17. Gallons of 100LL fuel sold in 2021.
Gallons of 100LL Fuel Respondents Percent

50,000 gallons or less 13 42
50,001–150,000 gallons 9 29
150,001–250,000 gallons 5 16
250,001–500,000 gallons 4 13
More than 500,000 gallons 0 0
Table 18. 100LL sales in 2021 compared to 2019.
100LL Fuel Sales Respondents Percent

About the same as 2019 10 32
Lower than 2019 9 29
More than 2019 12 39

The FBO survey took place midway through 2022. Respondents were asked how fuel sales
were shaping up in the first six months of 2022. Table 19 shows a mixed response: overall, fuel
sales for half of the respondents were up in 2022 from 2021, but some FBOs reported that sales
were dropping off a bit. The observation that activity was leveling off in the second half of 2022
is a consistent thread throughout the survey.
Following are some direct comments from respondents to the survey. They reflect many dif-
ferent experiences with the pandemic recovery.
• “Budgeted jet fuel gallons were $208,000 for the first 6 months. Actual gallons sold were
$236,438. The Avgas budget for the first 6 months was $125,000. Actual was $141,061. We
are purchasing fuel more frequently and have added an additional jet fuel truck simply for
additional storage.”
• “Jet A sales are ahead of same period 2021 and a little behind 2019. 100LL is behind 2021 and
by 40% compared to 2019. Our airport has experienced a large growth bubble in local business
near or at the airport, which is driving corporate traffic. Flight schools make up majority of
Avgas purchases, and their activity appears to be down from a fuel perspective.”
• “In the first 6 months of 2021, we sold 18,301 gal 100LL and 97,293 gal of Jet A. In 2022, we
sold only 11,246 gal and 42,990 gal respectively. Our fuel suppliers have had a hard time get-
ting trucks because of driver shortages. More businesses are using technology for meetings
because flying is less cost effective. The ag sprayers are choosing ground rigs over aircraft to
spray their crops.”
• “Fuel sales are expected to surpass 2021 fuel levels. Peak season (football season) will signifi-
cantly impact sales.”
• “Following the same yearly trends, just with a smaller volume.”
• “Still strong but slightly off 2021, which was 30% greater than 2019.”
• “Fuel sales for Jet A are up this year. Avgas has dropped a bit, mainly because the price has
increased so drastically since February.”
• “Fuel sales for both Avgas and Jet A are lower so far this year than in previous years. Avgas has
also been difficult to get in our region.”
• “We were ahead of our 2021 pace but have had a significant drop over the last 30 days.”
• “Still robust, with our sales up approximately 6%. However, we are starting to see some reduc-
tions in overall gallons sold.”
• “Fuel volume grew more than 40% in 2021 and is about 20% higher thus far in 2022, but since
May, sales have been flat compared to the prior year. It is honestly a welcome sign. The rate of
growth was unsustainable, and now we can catch our breaths and better prepare for the winter
Table 19. Outlook for fuel sales in 2022.
Fuel Sales in 2022 Respondents Percent*

Lower than 2019 1 3.8
Better than 2019 but lower than 2021 2 7.7
About the same as 2021 3 11.5
Lower than 2021 4 15.4
More than 2021 10 38.5
Ahead of 2021 but dropping off 3 11.5
Jet A more/100LL less 2 7.7
Jet A less/100LL more 1 3.8
*Note: Numbers do not add up to 100% due to rounding.

tourist season in 2023. We are projecting a slight 5% decline in 2023 due to customers settling
into post-COVID norms, fuel price volatility, and general economic concerns. Disruptions in
airline service will continue to drive activity towards GA.”
Other FBO Services

Table 20 describes FBO services offered by respondents. Notable results are that different
solutions are applied to provide catering services. Most FBOs did not change services offered
during the pandemic, but several commented on more internal cleaning and procedures. FBOs
that experienced increases in private jet activity had to hire additional staff.
Customer Mix
Figure 25 shows 29 responses to the question, “What percent of your customers are business
versus leisure?” Sixteen of the FBOs reported more business customers than recreational. One
FBO provides services to the military, and another supports flight training (both recorded as
“other” in the graph).
When asked if the customer mix changed during the pandemic, 28 FBOs responded: 54% said
no change; 46% said the customer mix had changed. Fourteen FBOs commented on some of the
changes. FBOs located in metropolitan areas that are traditional business destinations reported
a decline in corporate customers. Others reported more leisure travel and groups of family and
friends sharing the cost of a charter flight. FBOs commented on increased charter and fractional
Table 20. Other airport services.
Different
Airport Airport
FBO FBO Does FBO Tenant Sponsor
Service Provides Not Provide Subcontracts Provides Provides
Courtesy transportation 27 0 2 1 4
Ground services 27 0 1 2 4
Hangar rental 24 1 1 4 7
Concierge 19 7 2 1 1
Rental cars 13 2 9 8 0
Maintenance, repairs, and parts 11 5 0 16 2
Catering 10 3 15 4 0
Aircraft management 7 13 0 9 0
Aircraft leases or sales 6 15 1 6 0
Airport management 6 9 0 2 18
Flight training 5 8 0 19 1
Aircraft cleaning and detailing 4 11 6 8 0
Aircraft painting, interiors, and modifications 3 18 1 6 0
Avionics sales and services 3 12 1 12 1
Aerial tours 0 21 0 8 0

100
90
80
70
Percent 60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Respondent
Business Leisure Other (Military, Flight Schools, , , Law Enforcement)

Figure 25. Reported customer mix.
aircraft activity. There were aircraft used for combined business and leisure travel. Corporate
board meetings were accomplished remotely, so this dedicated travel disappeared. One FBO
involved with pilot training said that demand for new pilot training increased markedly and
required the FBO to invest in additional staff and aircraft to support the demand. FBOs where
there was little change in activity reported an unchanged customer mix.
Outlook for the Remainder of 2022

FBOs were asked if they had experienced a surge in private aviation in 2021 and whether this
level of activity has continued. Twenty-three responded and their comments are summarized in
Table 21. Six reported no surge at all. Most said the surge is continuing, but at a slightly lower
level in 2022. Individual comments included:
• Charters and fractional activity remain strong.
• There appears to be some tapering because international travel has opened.
• High fuel prices and inflation may be dampening travel.
• One FBO reported a return to full strength in its high-altitude testing program following a
quiet year in 2021.
Table 21. Has the private aviation surge

continued in 2022?
Surge in 2022 Respondents Percent

Surge Continues 10 43.5
Slight Decline from 2021 6 26.1
Surge Ended/Back to 2019 Levels 1 4.3
No Surge 6 26.1

Table 22. Near-term challenges ranked.
Very Somewhat Not Weighted

Challenge Important (3) Important (2) Important (1) Average
Rising prices and wages 23 5 1 2.76
Hiring and retaining staff 22 4 3 2.66
Fuel margins 21 6 2 2.66
Hangar availability 19 9 1 2.62
Need for new facilities and infrastructure 19 7 3 2.55
Availability of capital 18 5 6 2.41
Local community support 11 10 8 2.10
Security 5 16 8 1.90
New aircraft sizes and technology 5 14 10 1.83
Changing customer base 1 22 6 1.83
Shifting demand for FBO services 6 11 12 1.79
Integrating new aircraft fuels 5 11 13 1.72
Competition from other FBOs 6 8 15 1.69
Succession strategy for FBO ownership 7 5 17 1.66
FBO lease renewals 5 4 20 1.48
Near-Term Challenges
Twenty-nine respondents addressed and ranked some of the greatest challenges in 2022.
A weighted average was used to identify priorities in which “very important” issues were assigned 3;
“somewhat important,” 2; and “not important,” 1. Table 22 reports on these issues, with rising
prices and wages, hiring and retaining staff, fuel margins, and hangar availability ranking as
critical challenges.
Other challenges for 2022 included as open-ended responses were:
• Airport and FBO working jointly to initiate and fund new hangars and FBO facilities.
• Rising fuel prices affecting certain customer groups.
• Keeping pace with inflation and being able to pass higher costs on to customers.
• Construction challenges on existing projects.
• Growth in private aviation increasing community concerns about noise and pollution.
• Limitations on pipeline capacity or fuel truck availability making it challenging to maintain
fuel levels.
• FBO consolidation increasing large-chain operators’ ability to set prices and negotiate with
individual customers using their FBOs.
Challenges in the Next Five Years

Table 23 ranks the top challenges in the next five years reported by 29 survey respondents.
The number-one challenge for operators was securing sufficient funding for updated FBO facili-
ties and infrastructure. Except for two, FBOs answering this question are not owned by private
investment companies and funds. The second- and third-ranked challenges involve fuel sales
and margins. Half of respondents sold less than 500,000 gallons of jet fuel in 2021, and 61% of

Table 23. Next-five-year challenges ranked.
Very Somewhat Not

Important Important Important Weighted
Challenge (3) (2) (1) Average
Funding for new or updated FBO facilities and infrastructure 18 9 2 2.55
Greater volumes of jet fuel sold at contract rates 14 11 4 2.34
Increased self-fueling/tankering by high-volume fuel customers 11 10 8 2.10
Integration of new unleaded Avgas and SAF into fueling operations 7 13 8 1.96
Expanded coordinated services offered by FBOs using networks and alliances 6 12 11 1.83
Competitive pressures from low-price fuel sold at nearby FBOs 5 14 10 1.83
Sufficient electricity and related infrastructure to support electric aircraft 3 17 9 1.79
FBO opportunities to support advanced air mobility operations 4 13 12 1.72
respondents sold less than 150,000 gallons of 100LL. Interestingly, electricity capacity and pre-
paring for AAM were the lowest-ranked challenges for the next five years. The last question in
the survey explains why.
Timeline for Electric Aircraft

Table 24 reports on respondent expectations about when they will need to be ready for elec-
tric aircraft. This group does not appear to be particularly concerned with AAM; in fact, one
respondent commented:
I am not yet convinced AAM and eVTOLS are the future. Worldwide, helicopters have limited market
penetration. What makes these so different? There is nowhere near the vertiport space/infrastructure
needed to scale this up to a level that would appear to make it viable. Community acceptance of this new
mode of air travel is not receiving adequate attention either. Lastly, FBOs do not know how to prepare.
We need more guidance from OEMs and the FAA.
It appears that companies engaged in research and development of AAM are hopeful about
the advent of electric aircraft (See Advanced Air Mobility discussion in Chapter 3). At this point
in time, FBOs have adopted a wait-and-see approach. About one-third of those surveyed think
they need to be ready for electric aircraft within five years; the rest think that FBOs have at least
five or more years to prepare. It may also be the case that smaller FBOs will be later adopters
of this technology than larger FBOs. There also seems to be a lack of clarity about how best to
prepare for electric aircraft on the ramp and about who is responsible for increasing electricity
capacity.
Table 24. Timeline for FBOs to be ready to service

electric aircraft.
FBO Readiness to Serve Electric Aircraft Respondents Percent

Within the next 3 years 4 14
3 to 5 years 5 17
5 to 10 years 12 41
More than 10 years 8 28

Wrap-Up on the FBO Survey

Given the diversity of the FBO industry and the continued dominance of FBOs with one to
three locations, the survey provided insights into the smaller segment of this industry. In many
respects, survey respondents confirmed that gains in private aviation experienced during the
pandemic were not shared by all FBOs or airports. That said, recreational destinations and pilot
training centers fared quite well. The survey was conducted midway through 2022, and many
FBOs observed good to very good levels of activity in 2022, but pandemic gains started to flat-
ten out midyear. Some locations reported difficulties obtaining fuel deliveries, especially 100LL.
None of the survey respondents reported selling unleaded Avgas or SAF blends. (Most FBOs that
use these fuels are on the West Coast or in the Midwest.) Last, for publicly owned and single-
location private FBO respondents, funding for capital improvements was the number-one chal-
lenge. Number two was maintaining fuel margins, and three was the ability to pass on increased
costs to customers and stay competitive.

CHAPTER 5
Conclusions and Future Updates
The FBO industry remains a diverse group of enterprises that have vastly different charac-
teristics and business models. For the most part, all FBOs provide fueling and aircraft services,
parking, hangars, and customer care. That is where similarities end. In ACRP Synthesis 108, the
universe of FBOs was divided into groups primarily by ownership and number of locations.
A third dimension that is relevant and became especially important during the COVID-19 pan-
demic is customer and aircraft mix—the FBO’s market.
COVID-19 accomplished the unexpected: it temporarily closed the commercial aviation
system. What became evident was that certain segments of the GA markets could survive in
these extreme situations—the private cabin-class market, pilot training, and essential air-reliant
businesses that did not shut down. Private aviation prospered because it could offer a more con-
trolled cabin space and provided an alternative to commercial flights. Pilot training continued
because it was an essential service and the industry needed more pilots. Airports supporting
air-reliant businesses that need just-in-time deliveries—such as banks, grocery store chains, and
manufacturing plants—also experienced stable and sometimes increased traffic. Local economic
activity to a large extent determined the impacts of COVID-19 on an airport and its FBOs.
In many ways, the pandemic created favorable conditions for large FBO chains to expand.
These included limited commercial aviation during the initial stages of the pandemic; fear that
air travel contributed to the spread of COVID-19; and new private aviation activity, particularly
to vacation markets. Most large FBO chains are owned by private equity firms and infrastructure
funds, whose main strategy is to build and operate networks of FBOs that complement each
other and offer economies of scale. The pandemic was the perfect storm that ushered in the third
wave of mergers and acquisitions documented in this synthesis.
COVID-19 focused attention on new FBO markets. Stay-at-home orders and homeschooling
made it possible for some to work remotely. In late 2020, demand for second homes doubled
from the previous year, helped by historically low mortgage interest rates and the fact that desti-
nation locations in the United States were accessible during the pandemic (Strum, 2020). Vaca-
tion spots such as Aspen, Colorado; Cape Cod, Massachusetts; Coeur d’Alene, Idaho; Jackson
Hole, Wyoming; Lake Tahoe, California; Naples, Florida; and Palm Springs, California, experi-
enced high population growth. The flow of new visitors and residents to these locations markedly
raised the level of airport activity and contributed to increased costs for housing. There was also
an uptick in investment and acquisitions of FBOs in those vacation spots, where second home
purchases translated into increased demand for private aviation. This phenomenon was present
at both public and private FBOs. Publicly owned FBOs experienced the same swell of activity as
private FBOs, provided they were in the right community. Based on the degree of new invest-
ment in hangars and FBO facilities in those towns, FBO owners are hoping and counting on
second home locations becoming frequent or full-time residences.
58

Conclusions and Future Updates 59
The objective for this synthesis was to examine the landscape for FBOs in 2022. A lot of change
took place within the FBO industry during the pandemic. Many FBOs, large and small, sup-
ported essential air-reliant activity when commercial air service shut down. It was more difficult
to gauge the landscape for airport-owned and private FBOs that serve the sprawling active piston
aircraft fleet, given their large number. Additional research would help understand and build on
their unique stories.
Future research about the FBO industry could include:
• An update using AirNav and 5010 data of the FBO database started in 2018.
• A guidebook that assists airports with methods to validate local hangar demand, to conduct
financial feasibility studies for new construction, to investigate different business models for
paying and managing new hangars, and to adjust rates and charges so that they reflect actual
costs and market rates.
• An annual FBO survey that focuses on specific segments of the industry and has sufficient
resources to recruit a greater number of participants.
• A larger effort to reach and interview airport-owned and small independent FBOs, recogniz-
ing that enough interviews must be completed to show the diversity of experiences from FBOs
across the country.
Unlike the commercial sector of aviation, the FBO industry is mostly in private hands and
requires extensive original research to document trends. If AAM comes to fruition and there
are more electric aircraft in the skies, FBOs are likely to participate in this new mode of trans-
portation in meaningful ways. For this reason alone, ongoing monitoring about how new fuels,
technologies, and aircraft will be integrated effectively into airport and FBO operations is of great
interest to the airport and the FBO communities.

APPENDIX A
FBO Survey
60

FBO Survey 61


FBO Survey 63


FBO Survey 65


FBO Survey 67


APPENDIX B
References and Bibliography
4Air, “Sustainable Aviation Fuel—An Introduction,” 2023, https://www.4air.aero/whitepapers/sustainable

-aviation-fuel-an-introduction#:∼:text=Depending%20on%20the%20feedstock%2C%20not%20all
%20SAF%20contains,though%20most%20commercially-available%20blends%20will%20only%20be
%2030-38%25. 2023.
Airlines for America, “The State of U.S. Commercial Aviation,” updated January 25, 2023, https://www.airlines
.org/dataset/state-of-us-aviation/.
AirNav, California Airports. Accessed November 10, 2022. https://www.airnav.com/airports/us/CA.
AviationPros, “Revv Aviation Taking Fresh Approach to FBO Services,” July 27, 2022, https://www.aviationpros.com
/fbos-tenants/press-release/21275499/revv-aviation-revv-aviation-taking-fresh-approach-to-fbo-services.
BAE Systems, “What Is Advanced Air Mobility?,” n.d., https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/definition/what
-is-advanced-air-mobility.
Banchik, Leonardo, and Robin Riedel, “Right in Your Backyard: Regional Airports Are an Accessible and Under
used Resource for Future Air Mobility,” McKinsey & Company, May 26, 2021.
Batey, Angus, “Demonstrations Highlight Operational Challenges for AAM,” Aviation Week Networks, October 5,
2022.
Boatman, Julie, “Reid–Hillview Airport Battles Misconceptions,” FLYING, August 20, 2021, https://www
.flyingmag.com/reid-hillview-airport-battles-misconceptions/.
Bryant, Chris, “The Private Jet Boom Is Ripe for Public Scrutiny,” Bloomberg, October 19, 2022, https://bloomberg
.com/opinion/articles/2022-10-20/the-private-jet-boom-is-ripe-for-public-scrutiny-of-its-environmental
-impact#xj4y7vzkg.
Carey, Bill, AAM on the Ground series, Aviation Week Network: “FBOs Eye New Market, Part 1,” May 31, 2022;
“Charging Concepts Vary, Part 2,” June 1, 2022; “Electrical Need and Supply, Part 3,” June 2, 2022.
Castagna, Curt, “DEPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0341 Proposed Designation of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and
Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) as CERCLA Hazardous Substances,” NATA, November 7, 2022.
Chokshi, Niraj, “Airlines Cash In as Flexible Work Changes Travel Patterns,” New York Times, October 22, 2022,
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/21/business/airlines-flex-work-travel.html.
Deloitte Insights, Advanced Air Mobility: Can the United States Afford to Lose the Race?, Aerospace Industries
Association, 2022, https://www.aia-aerospace.org/wp-content/uploads/AAM-Can-the-US-Afford-to-Lose
-the-Race.pdf.
Desert Jet, “What Is a Fixed Base Operator?,” July 5, 2012, https://desertjet.com/2012/07/05/what-is-a-fixed-base
-operator/.
Enticknap, John, and Ron Jackson, “Preparing for a New Business Reality: Unbundled Services, Tiered Pricing,”
AC-U-KWIK, July 30, 2020, https://www.acukwikalert.com/ac-u-kwik-fbo-connection/2020/7/30/preparing
-for-a-new-business-reality-unbundled-services-tier.html.
Epstein, Curt, “Hangar Foam: A Solution Looking for a Problem?,” Aviation International News, June 10, 2020,
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2020-06-10/hangar-foam-solution-looking
-problem.
Epstein, Curt, “Airport to Take Over Alabama FBO,” Aviation International News, September 29, 2020, https://
www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2020-09-29/airport-take-over-alabama-fbo.
Epstein, Curt, “GIP Set to Acquire Signature Aviation in $4.6B Bid,” Aviation International News, January 11,
2021, https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2021-01-11/gip-set-acquire-signature
-aviation-46b-bid.
Epstein, Curt, “Canada’s Skyservice Expands to U.S.,” Aviation International News, November 10, 2021, https://
www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2021-11-10/canadas-skyservice-expands-us.
69

Epstein, Curt, “FBO Survey Report: 2022—The Americas,” Aviation International News, April 1, 2022, https://
www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2022-04-01/fbo-survey-report-2022-americas.
Epstein, Curt, “Ross Aviation Goes Hawaiian,” Aviation International News, May 3, 2022, https://www.ainonline
.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2022-05-03/ross-aviation-goes-hawaiian.
Epstein, Curt, “FBOs Feel the Labor Pinch,” Aviation International News, October 3, 2022, https://www.ainonline
.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2022-10-03/fbos-feel-labor-pinch.
Epstein, Curt, “Flexjet to Join SPAC and Go Public,” Aviation International News, October 11, 2022, https://www
.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2022-10-11/flexjet-join-spac-and-go-public.
Epstein, Curt, “Honeywell Sees Strong Growth Ahead for Bizav,” Aviation International News, October 16,
2022, https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2022-10-16/honeywell-sees-strong
-growth-ahead-bizav.
Epstein, Curt, “NetJets Nears 1,000-Aircraft Fleet,” Aviation International News, November 3, 2022.
FAA, “Advisory Circulars on Exclusive Rights and Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities,”
Appendix C in FAA Airport Compliance Manual, Order 5190.6B, September 30, 2009, https://www.faa.gov
/documentlibrary/media/order/5190_6b.pdf.
FAA, “Submitting the Airport Master Record in Order to Activate a New Airport,” Advisory Circular 150/
5200-35A, September 23, 2010, https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_150
_5200-35A.pdf.
FAA, “FAA, Industry Chart Path to Eliminate Lead Emissions from General Aviation by the End of 2030,” Feb-
ruary 23, 2022, https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-industry-chart-path-eliminate-lead-emissions-general
-aviation-end-2030.
FAA, “FAA Aerospace Forecast Fiscal Years 2022–2042,” updated June 28, 2022. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov
/files/2022-06/FAA_Aerospace_Forecasts_FY_2022-2042.pdf.
FAA, Federal Regulations 14 CFR 91.225 and 14 CFR 91.227.
FAA, “National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems—Current: 2023–2027 NPIAS,” last updated September 30,
2022, https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/npias/current.
Ferguson, George, Don Spieth, and Andrew Young, “Back to the Future, Not Unusual Business,” AMSTAT Busi-
ness Aviation Quarterly Report, October 2022.
Ferguson, George, Don Spieth, and Andrew Young, “Business Aviation’s New Path—How the Economy, Travel, and
Wealth Influence Your Angle of Attack in 2022,” AMSTAT Quarterly Report Webinar, February 17, 2022, https://
www.amstatcorp.com/market-report/amstat-iada-business-aircraft-resale-market-presentation-0-1-1.
FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data), “Employment Level,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, informa-
tion to September 2022, accessed October 26, 2022, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CE16OV.
FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data), “Federal Funds Effective Rate,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,
information to October 2022, accessed October 26, 2022, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DFF.
Fuchs, Guenter, “Great Expectations: What’s Required for AAM Players to Become Some of the Largest Airlines
in the World,” McKinsey & Company, October 6, 2022.
Ganti, Akhilesh, “What Real Gross Domestic Product (Real GDP) Is, How to Calculate It, vs. Nominal,” Investo-
pedia, updated July 3, 2023, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/realgdp.asp.
General Aviation Manufacturers Association, “2021 Annual Data.”
General Aviation Manufacturers Association, “Shipment Record: 2020 Year-End,” May 20, 2021, https://gama
.aero/wp-content/uploads/2020ShipmentReport-05202021.pdf.
General Aviation Manufacturers Association, “General Aviation Aircraft Shipment Record: 2021 Year-End,”
May 16, 2022, https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2021ShipmentReport-2022-05-16-1.pdf.
General Aviation Manufacturers Association, “General Aviation Aircraft Shipment Record: 2022 Year-End
Report,” March 10, 2023, https://gama.aero/wp-content/uploads/2022ShipmentReport2023-03-10.pdf
General Aviation News Staff, “AOPA Files Complaint with FAA on 100LL Ban,” General Aviation News, October 20,
2022, https://generalaviationnews.com/2022/10/20/aopa-files-complaint-with-faa-on-100ll-ban/.
Godlewski, Meg, “Aviation Community Livid with Santa Clara County over Looming 100LL Ban,” FLYING,
December 15, 2021, https://www.flyingmag.com/aviation-community-livid-with-santa-clara-county-over
-looming-100ll-ban/.
Godlewski, Meg, “FAA Investigates Alleged Safety and Grant Violations at Reid–Hillview Airport,” FLYING,
December 28, 2021, https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-investigates-alleged-safety-and-grant-violations-at
-reid-hillview-airport/.
Gollan, Doug, “Charter/Fractional Private Jet Market Share Grows to 54.3%.” Private Jet Card Comparisons
(blog), March 1, 2022a. https://privatejetcardcomparisons.com/2022/03/01/charter-fractional-private-jet
-market-shares-grows-to-54-3/.
Gollan, Doug, “2021’s 30 Biggest Charter/Fractional Private Jet Companies Ranked (Full Year),” Private Jet Card
Comparisons (blog), March 2, 2022b. https://privatejetcardcomparisons.com/2022/03/02/2021s-30-biggest
-charter-fractional-private-jet-companies-ranked-full-year/.

References and Bibliography 71
Gollan, Doug, “Argus Predicts 2.3% January Gain in Private Jet Flight Activity,” Private Jet Comparisons (blog),
January 6, 2023, https://privatejetcardcomparisons.com/2023/01/06/argus-predicts-2-3-january-gain-in
-private-jet-flight-activity/.
Greenbank, Chloe, “Jet Aviation Expands Investment in Three US Facilities,” Regional Gateway, October 17,
2022, https://www.regionalgateway.net/jet-aviation-expands-investment-in-three-us-facilities/.
Grossman, Eric, “Private Flying Is Booming. But Parking Space for All Those Jets Is at a Premium,” Penta, July 26,
2022, https://www.barrons.com/articles/private-flying-is-booming-but-parking-space-for-all-those-jets-is
-at-premium-01658851110.
Hoff, Madison, and Juiliana Kaplan, “13 Reasons That Help Explain the Labor Shortage in the U.S.,”
Insider, December 8, 2021, https://www.businessinsider.com/potential-reasons-explain-labor-shortage
-open-jobs-not-enough-workers-2021-12.
Honeywell, “What Is Sustainable Aviation Fuel?,” n.d., https://www.honeywell.com/us/en/news/2021/12
/what-is-sustainable-aviation-fuel.
Honeywell, “Honeywell Explores Future of Hydrogen-Powered Aircraft,” 2022, https://aerospace.honeywell
.com/us/en/about-us/blogs/honeywell-explores-future-of-hydrogen-powered-aircraft.
Hughes, Jazmine, “Need to Keep Gen Z Workers Happy? Hire a ‘Generational Consultant,’” New York Times,
February 19, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/19/magazine/millennials-gen-z-consulting
.html.
Kamin, Debra, “More Private Jets Take to the Skies, Creating Gridlock on the Ground,” New York Times, March 29,
2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/29/business/private-jet-parking-hangars.html.
Kesslen, Ben, “East Hampton Loses Battle to Privatize Airport,” New York Post, October 20, 2022, https://nypost
.com/2022/10/20/east-hampton-loses-battle-to-privatize-airport/.
Koshmrl, Mike, “Airport, Again, Spikes Idea of Second FBO,” Jackson Hole News and Guide, July 22, 2020, https://
www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/business/airport-again-spikes-idea-of-second-fbo/article_561eb5df
-8110-5663-a0f8-f061a8af325b.html.
Kowalick, Claire, “City May Take Over FBO Services at Regional Airport,” Times Record News, July 3, 2020,
https://www.timesrecordnews.com/story/news/local/2020/07/03/city-may-take-over-fbo-services-regional
/5372020002/.
Kramer, L. S., J. P. Daniel, M. Moore, M. Moroney, and G. Shafer, ACRP Synthesis 86: Airport Operator Options
for Delivery of FBO Services, Transportation Research Board, 2018.
Kramer, L. S., R. Jones, D. Neuder, N. Tessitore, and G. Shafer, ACRP Research Report 192: Airport Management
Guide for Providing Aircraft Fueling Services, Transportation Research Board, 2019.
Kramer, Lois S., ACRP Synthesis 108: Characteristics of the FBO Industry 2018–2019, Transportation Research
Board, 2020.
Leeds School of Business, 2022 Colorado Business Economic Outlook, University of Colorado Boulder, 2022,
https://spl.cde.state.co.us/artemis/ucbserials/ucb4109internet/ucb41092022internet.pdf.
Liu, Ted, “InstarAGF Acquires Skyservice,” Private Capital Journal, September 18, 2017, https://privatecapital
journal.com/instaragf-acquires-skyservice/.
Lynch, Kerry, “Bombardier Tapping Market for ‘Certified’ Preowned Aircraft,” Aviation International News,
October 17, 2022, https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2022-10-17/bombardier
-tapping-market-certified-preowned-aircraft.
Mellon, Michelle, “Understanding NFPA 409: Fire Suppression for Aircraft Hangars,” Vanguard, September 10,
2022, https://vanguard-fire.com/understanding-nfpa-409-fire-suppression-for-aircraft-hangars/.
Milke, James, Sudeep Behera, Kelliann Lee, and Caroline Slingluff, “Review of Foam Fire Suppression System Dis-
charges in Aircraft Hangars,” February 22, 2021, https://www.nata.aero/assets/Site_18/files/NFPA%20409
/UMD%20Report%2011-12.pdf.
Naples Airport, “Noise Abatement Measures,” updated June 2023, https://www.flynaples.com/noise-abatement
-measures/.
NATA (National Air Transportation Association), “Fire Marshal Toolkit,” June 10, 2020, https://www.nata.aero
/assets/Site_18/files/GIA/NFPA409/Fire%20Marshal%20Toolkit.pdf.
NATA (National Air Transportation Association), “Aircraft Hangar Fire Protection Guidance,” June 13, 2022,
https://nata.aero/assets/Site_18/files/NFPA%20409/NATAAircraftHangarFireProtectionGuidance.pdf.
National Business Aviation Association, “COVID-19 Impacting General Aviation Airports,” April 1, 2020, https://
nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/safety/coronavirus/covid-19-point-of-impact/point-of-impact-covid-19-impacting
-general-aviation-airports/.
Ollek, Josh, Dan Capek, Bram Hall, Gordie Vap, “Despite Headwinds, Consolidation of Fixed Base Operators
Will Continue,” William Blair Research, July 21, 2020, file:///C:/Users/dao5zm/Downloads/Fixed-Based
-Operators-July-2020%20(1).pdf.
Orloff, Matthew, “Four Corners Aviation Acquires UltraAir,” Aviation Week Network, October 6, 2022, https://
aviationweek.com/business-aviation/aircraft-propulsion/four-corners-aviation-acquires-ultraair.

Petrie, Joe, “Is It Time to Sell Your FBO?,” AviationPros, October 17, 2022, https://www.aviationpros.com
/fbos-tenants/article/21283499/is-it-time-to-sell-your-fbo.
Phelps, Mark, “Can Unleaded Avgas Blunt Efforts to Close Reid–Hillview Airport?,” AVweb, August 17, 2021,
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/can-unleaded-avgas-stop-efforts-to-close-reid-hillview-airport/.
San Bernadino International Airport, “FBO Pricing Policy: Fiscal Year 2022–23,” updated July 1, 2022, https://
www.luxivairsbd.com/flight-planning/fees/.
Schwab, Amy, Anna Thomas, Jesse Bennett, Emma Robertson, and Scott Cary, Electrification of Aircraft: Chal-
lenges, Barriers, and Potential Impacts, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), October 2021.
Smith, Josh, “GSE through the Lens of the FBO,” AviationPros, July 23, 2019, https://www.aviationpros.com/gse
/article/21089731/gse-through-the-lens-of-fbos.
Staggs, Brooke, “Long Beach Pursues Plan to Reduce Leaded Fuel at Airport,” AviationPros, October 8, 2022,
https://www.aviationpros.com/airports/news/21284322/long-beach-pursues-plan-to-reduce-leaded-fuel-at
-airport.
Stalnaker, Tom, Khalid Usman, and Andrew Buchanan, “Despite Big Travel Numbers, Airlines Aren’t Roaring
Back Yet,” CNN Business, April 13, 2021, https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/13/perspectives/travel-airlines
-pandemic/index.html.
Stalnaker, Tom, Khalid Usman, Grant Alport, Andrew Buchanan, Aaron Taylor, Airline Economic Analysis
2021–2022, Oliver Wyman, 2022, https://www.oliverwyman.com/content/dam/oliver-wyman/v3/Airline
-Economic-Analysis-2021-2022.pdf.
Stawski, Benji, “The 8 Cheapest Ways to Get the Private Jet Experience,” The Points Guy, September 21, 2021,
https://thepointsguy.com/guide/affordable-private-jets/.
Strum, Beckie, “Second Homes Are Driving the U.S.’s COVID-19 Housing Boom,” Penta, November 20, 2020,
https://www.barrons.com/articles/second-homes-are-driving-the-u-s-s-covid-19-housing-boom
-01605885642.
Thornbruch, Kaye, “New Jet Center Takes Off,” North Idaho Business Journal, July 27, 2021, https://businessjournal
northidaho.com/news/2021/jul/27/BJNI-new-jet-center-takes/#:∼:text=StanCraft%20Jet%20Center
%20opened%20in,Alene%20Airport%20Pappy%2DBoyington%20Field.
U.S. DOE, “Sustainable Aviation Fuels,” n.d., U.S. Department of Energy. https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy
/sustainable-aviation-fuels.
Verzoni, Angelo, “Beyond Foam,” NFPA Journal, January 5, 2022, https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research
/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2022/Spring-2022/News-and-Analysis/Dispatches/Beyond-Foam.
Wilson, Douglas, “FBOs in a Post-pandemic World,” Airport Business, January/February 2021, https://fbopartners
.com/wp-content/uploads/AB_FBOs-in-a-Post-Pandemic-World-Jan-Feb-21.pdf.
Young, Andrew, “AMSTAT Business Aircraft Preowned Market,” AMSTAT, January 4, 2022, https://www.amstatcorp
.com/preowned-market-report-landing.

APPENDIX C
Abbreviations
100LL 100 Low Lead (also known as Avgas)

AAM Advanced Air Mobility
Avgas Aviation Gasoline
BCB Virginia Tech/Montgomery Executive Airport
CPI Consumer Price Index
EAGLE Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions
eVTOL Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing
FBO Fixed-Base Operator
GA General Aviation
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GSE Ground Support Equipment
MRO Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul
NATA National Air Transportation Association
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OPEC Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
OSH Wittman Regional Airport
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acid
PFOS Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid
PPI Producer Price Index
SAF Sustainable Aviation Fuel
SPAC Special Purpose Acquisition Company
SPS Wichita Falls Regional Airport
UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
VJI Virginia Highlands Airport
73


Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

Transportation Research Board

500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
ISBN 978-0-309-70915-6
90000
9 780309 709156

129 - Landscape of The FBO Industry in 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

129 - Landscape of The FBO Industry in 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

129 - Landscape of The FBO Industry in 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.

Landscape of the FBO Industry in 2022

FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

ACRP SYNTHESIS 129

Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP SYNTHESIS 129

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR ACRP SYNTHESIS 129

ACRP PROJECT 11-03 PANEL

TOPIC S01-26 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

ABOUT THE ACRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Landscape of the FBO Industry

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 Landscape of the FBO Industry in 2022

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Adapted from Desert Jet, 2012

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 Landscape of the FBO Industry in 2022

Source: Adapted from Wikimedia Commons, the free media

Figure 1. Study process.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Aviation and FBO Research and

Trends in Online Survey

Figure 2. Report organization.

Table 1. Related ACRP publications.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Recent Trends in Aviation

COVID-19 Impacts on Aviation Activity

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Recent Trends in Aviation and the U.S. Economy 9

Air Carrier Air Taxi Local GA

Figure 3. Variance in operations from same month in 2019.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

10 Landscape of the FBO Industry in 2022

Day of Week Ending

Corporate Travel Online Leisure/Other

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Recent Trends in Aviation and the U.S. Economy 11

ticketing on commercial airlines. According to Airline Reporting Corporation data, tickets

Pandemic Impacts on Different Categories of Airports

2019 2020 2021 2022

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

12 Landscape of the FBO Industry in 2022

Table 3. Percent recovery of total

Airport Categories 2019 2020 2021 2022

Small Regional Large Regional Single-Aisle Twin-Aisle

Dec 31 2019 Dec 31 2022