An airport with a capacity of 10,000 passengers and an annual revenue of $1 billion will have to spend at least $1.5 billion to maintain its facilities, according to a new report by an aviation industry think tank.
The airport would also have to hire workers and maintain its equipment.
The Federal Aviation Administration has set a goal of bringing in about $2.4 billion in fiscal 2018 from a deal that would fund the construction of the airport.
But the $1 million cost of the capital investment is more than the FAA has been willing to cover, according a report from the Federal Aviation Council, a Washington-based nonprofit that advocates for the commercial and recreational aviation industry.
The agency says it has agreed to pay $1 per seat for each passenger at the new airport, a roughly 20 percent premium over the existing $1 rate.
The agreement also requires that all of the money go toward building the airport’s runway, as well as the maintenance of the runway and a runway maintenance facility.
The report, entitled “Airports with a Capacity of 10K or More,” says a number of the airports in the report are currently under construction.
The airports in question are: Anchorage International Airport in Alaska, Boise International Airport, Denver International Airport and Las Vegas International Airport.
An airport of 10 million or more seats, like a Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport with capacity of 40,000 or more passengers, would have to pay more than $1,000 a seat.
That means the airport would have had to spend nearly $100 million to replace all of its infrastructure and about $150 million for the airport itself.
“There’s a lot of money in the $200 million figure, but it’s not clear how much is in the future,” said the report’s author, Peter Neumann, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The FAA’s current deal is for $1 for each seat.
The aviation industry has pushed for a longer term agreement to pay for airport improvements and a new runway in the past, but the agency has refused to go along with that.
“This is a little bit of a tough sell,” Neumann said.
“But this is a deal for the future, so it’s better to get something done now than to wait for something to happen.”
The FAA says the new agreement is designed to keep the FAA in line with other airports that are under construction, such as Boston’s Logan International Airport (LIA), New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport , Washington Dulles International Airport of Dulles and San Francisco International Airport .
But Neumann argues that the agency should take a hard look at the cost of its airport.
“It’s a pretty clear case of a public-private partnership,” he said.
Neumann and his colleague, John Krasinski, a professor at the School of International Service at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote in the study that the FAA should use the $50 million in funds that are available for airport maintenance to pay down the $20 million that is currently spent on the airport each year.
The study also calls on the FAA to work with private companies to develop an air traffic control plan for the new terminal.
The authors say that the agreement would also allow the FAA and the airlines to continue working on other aviation projects, such the construction or expansion of the existing runway, but Neumann says that is unlikely.
“The FAA will probably need to negotiate some kind of agreement with private airlines, which I think they will have an interest in,” Neuman said.
More stories from The Post: