Airport Finance
Past Funding Levels May Not Be Sufficient to Cover Airports' Planned Capital Development Gao ID: GAO-03-497T February 25, 2003Since Congress enacted the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21 Century (AIR-21) 3 years ago, much has changed. At that time, the focus was on reducing congestion and flight delays. Today, flights are being canceled for lack of business, two major air carriers are in bankruptcy, and attention has shifted from increasing the capacity of the national airspace system to enhancing aviation security. Furthermore, as the federal budget deficit has increased, competition for federal resources has intensified, and the costs of airport capital development are growing, especially with the new requirements for security. Nonetheless, analysts expect the demand for air traffic services to rebound. Until that time, the unexpected slump in air traffic creates a window of opportunity to improve the safety and efficiency of the national airport system.
Although there is general consensus among stakeholders that maintaining the integrity of the national airport system requires continual capital investment, estimates vary as to the type and cost of planned airport capital development required to ensure a safe and efficient system. For 2001 through 2005, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has estimated annual planned capital development costs of about $9 billion, while the Airport Council International (ACI), a key organization representing the airport industry, has estimated annual costs of about $15 billion for 2002 through 2006. The estimates differ primarily because FAA's includes only projects that are eligible for federal funding, whereas ACI's includes projects that may or may not be eligible for federal funding. Neither FAA's nor ACI's estimate covers the airport terminal modifications needed to accommodate the new explosives detection systems required to screen checked baggage. According to ACI, the total cost of these modifications could be $3 billion to $5 billion over the next 5 years. From 1999 through 2001, airports received an average of about $12 billion a year for planned capital development. The primary source of this funding was bonds, which accounted for almost $7 billion, followed by federal grants and passenger facility charges, which accounted for $2.4 billion and $1.6 billion, respectively. The amounts and types of funding also varied by airport type. Of the $12 billion, large- and medium-hub airports received over $9 billion, and smaller airports received over $2 billion. If airports continue to receive about $12 billion a year for planned capital development, they would be able to fund all of the projects included in FAA's estimate, but they would not be able to fund about $3 billion in planned development estimated by ACI. While this projected shortfall could change with revisions in future funding, planned development, or both, it nevertheless indicates where funding differences may be the greatest. Options are available to increase or make better use of the funding for airport development, and these options would benefit different types of airports to varying degrees. For example, raising the current cap on passenger facility charges would primarily benefit larger airports, while increasing or redistributing Airport Improvement Program grant funds would be more likely to help smaller airports.
GAO-03-497T, Airport Finance: Past Funding Levels May Not Be Sufficient to Cover Airports' Planned Capital Development
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-497T
entitled 'Airport Finance: Past Funding Levels May Not Be Sufficient to
Cover Airports' Planned Capital Development' which was released on
February 25, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Testimony
Before the Subcommittee on Aviation, Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation:
For Release on Delivery
Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST
Tuesday, February 25, 2003:
Airport Finance:
Past Funding Levels May Not Be Sufficient to Cover Airports‘ Planned
Capital Development:
Statement of Gerald L. Dillingham
Director, Civil Aviation Issues:
GAO-03-497T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-475T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Aviation, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Why GAO Did This Study:
Much has changed since the Congress enacted the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) 3
years ago. The downturn in the nation‘s economy and the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, have taken a heavy toll on aviation,
and competition for federal funding has grown. Yet the decline in
air traffic has also created a window of opportunity to ensure the
safety and efficiency of the national airport system until the
demand for air traffic services rebounds.
The reauthorization of AIR-21 gives the Congress and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) a chance to analyze the estimated
costs of airports‘ planned capital development and the availability
of funding to meet these costs.
This testimony is based on ongoing and published GAO work. The
information on funding and development, obtained from FAA and the
Airport Council International (ACI), a key organization
representing the airport industry, is preliminary and therefore
subject to change.
What GAO Found:
The estimated costs of airports‘ planned capital development
vary, from FAA‘s estimate of about $9 billion a year to ACI‘s
estimate of about $15 billion a year. FAA‘s estimate, for 2001
through 2005, includes only projects that are eligible for federal
funding, whereas ACI‘s estimate, for 2002 through 2006, includes
projects that may or may not be eligible. Neither estimate covers
the costs of modifying airport terminals to accommodate the
explosives detection systems required to screen checked baggage.
According to ACI, these costs could be $3 billion to $5 billion
over the next 5 years.
From 1999 through 2001, airports received an average of about $12
billion a year for planned capital development, mostly from bonds
(almost $7 billion) and federal sources, including grants
($2.4 billion) and passenger facility charges ($1.6 billion). Of
the $12 billion, larger airports received over
$9 billion and smaller airports received over $2 billion annually,
on average.
If airports continue to receive about $12 billion a year for
planned capital development, they would be able to fund all of
the projects included in FAA‘s estimate, but they would not be
able to fund about $3 billion in planned development estimated
by ACI. While this projected shortfall could change with revisions
in future funding, planned development, or both, it nevertheless
indicates where funding differences may be the greatest.
Options are available to increase or make better use of funding for
airport development, and these options would benefit different
types of airports to varying degrees. For example, raising the
current cap on passenger facility charges would primarily benefit
larger airports, while increasing or redistributing grant funds
would be more likely to help smaller airports.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-475T. To view the full testimony,
including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above. For more information,
contact Gerald L. Dillingham at (202) 512-3650 or
dillinghamg@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We are pleased to be here today to discuss airport financing issues,
which are particularly important as you prepare to reauthorize the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21 Century
(AIR-21). Much has changed since the Congress enacted AIR-21 3 years
ago. At that time, the focus was on reducing congestion and flight
delays. Today, flights are being canceled for lack of business, two
major air carriers are in bankruptcy, and attention has shifted from
increasing the capacity of the national airspace system to enhancing
aviation security. Furthermore, as the federal budget deficit has
increased, competition for federal resources has intensified, and the
costs of airport capital development are growing, especially with the
new requirements for security. Nonetheless, analysts expect the demand
for air traffic services to rebound. Until that time, the unexpected
slump in air traffic creates a window of opportunity to improve the
safety and efficiency of the national airport system.
My statement today is based on our ongoing and completed work on
airport funding and addresses the following questions:
1. What are the estimated costs of airports‘ planned capital
development?
2. How much funding did airports receive for planned capital
development in recent years, and what were their principal sources of
funding?
3. If past funding levels continue, will they be sufficient to meet
estimates of planned capital development?
4. What options are available to address any potential difference
between planned development and available funding?
Because our information on planned airport capital development,
including the information we obtained from surveying 400 smaller
airports, is preliminary, it is subject to change as we finalize our
ongoing work.
In summary:
* Although there is general consensus among stakeholders that
maintaining the integrity of the national airport system requires
continual capital investment, estimates vary as to the type and cost of
planned airport capital development required to ensure a safe and
efficient system. For 2001 through 2005, FAA has estimated annual
planned capital development costs of about $9 billion, while the
Airport Council International (ACI), a key organization representing
the airport industry, has estimated annual costs of about $15 billion
for 2002 through 2006. The estimates differ primarily because FAA‘s
includes only projects that are eligible for federal funding, whereas
ACI‘s includes projects that may or may not be eligible for federal
funding. Neither FAA‘s nor ACI‘s estimate covers the airport terminal
modifications needed to accommodate the new explosives detection
systems required to screen checked baggage. According to ACI, the total
cost of these modifications could be $3 billion to $5 billion over the
next 5 years.
* From 1999 through 2001, airports received an average of about $12
billion a year for planned capital development. The primary source of
this funding was bonds, which accounted for almost $7 billion, followed
by federal grants and passenger facility charges, which accounted for
$2.4 billion and $1.6 billion, respectively. The amounts and types of
funding also varied by airport type. Of the $12 billion, large-and
medium-hub airports received over $9 billion, and smaller airports
received over $2 billion.
* If airports continue to receive about $12 billion a year for planned
capital development, they would be able to fund all of the projects
included in FAA‘s estimate, but they would not be able to fund about $3
billion in planned development estimated by ACI. While this projected
shortfall could change with revisions in future funding, planned
development, or both, it nevertheless indicates where funding
differences may be the greatest.
* Options are available to increase or make better use of the funding
for airport development, and these options would benefit different
types of airports to varying degrees. For example, raising the current
cap on passenger facility charges would primarily benefit larger
airports, while increasing or redistributing Airport Improvement
Program grant funds would be more likely to help smaller airports.
FAA‘s and the Airport Industry‘s Estimates of Airports‘ Planned Capital
Development Vary Substantially:
The estimated costs of planned airport capital development vary
depending on which projects are included in the estimates. According to
FAA‘s estimate, which includes only projects that are eligible for
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants, the total cost of airport
development will be about $46 billion, or about $9 billion per year,
for 2001 through 2005. FAA‘s estimate is based on the agency‘s National
Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, which FAA published in August 2002.
ACI‘s estimate includes all of the projects in FAA‘s estimate, plus
other planned airport capital projects that may or may not be eligible
for AIP grants. ACI estimates a total cost of almost $75 billion, or
nearly $15 billion per year for 2002 through 2006. Projects that are
eligible for AIP grants include runways, taxiways, and noise mitigation
and noise reduction efforts; projects that are not eligible for AIP
funding include parking garages, hangars, and expansions of commercial
space in terminals.
Both FAA‘s and ACI‘s estimates cover projects for every type of
airport. As table 1 indicates, the estimates are identical for all but
the large-and medium-hub airports, which are responsible for
transporting about 90 percent of the traveling public. For these
airports, ACI‘s estimate of planned development costs is about twice as
large as FAA‘s.
Table 1: Average Annual Planned Development Costs Estimated by FAA and
ACI, by Airport Type, 2001-2006:
[See PDF for image]
[End of table]
Source: FAA and ACI.
According to FAA‘s analysis of the planned capital development for 2001
through 2005, airports will use 61 percent of the $46 billion for
capacity enhancement, reconstruction, and modifications to bring
airports up to the agency‘s design standards and 39 percent to fund
safety, security, environmental, and other projects. See figure 1.
Figure 1: Distribution of FAA‘s Estimated $46 Billion for Planned
Capital Development at Airports by Project Type, 2001-2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: ’Standards“ includes projects to bring airports up to FAA‘s
design criteria. ’Other“ includes projects to, for example, develop
terminals to accommodate more passengers or larger aircraft and to
enhance airfield capacity.
Neither ACI‘s nor FAA‘s estimate includes funding for the terminal
modification projects that are needed to accommodate the new explosives
detection systems required to screen checked baggage. ACI estimates
that these projects will cost a total of about $3 billion to $5 billion
over the next 5 years. A key reauthorization issue facing the Congress
is how these terminal modification projects will be funded. In 2001,
the Congress allowed FAA to use AIP funds to help pay for some new
security projects; however, this use of AIP funds affected the amount
of funding that was available for some development projects.
Specifically, in fiscal year 2002, FAA used $561 million in AIP grant
funds for security projects, or about 17 percent of the $3.3 billion
available. The use of AIP grant funds for new security projects in
fiscal year 2002 reduced the funding available for other airport
development projects, such as projects to bring airports up to FAA‘s
design standards and reconstruction projects. The use of AIP grant
funds for security also caused FAA to defer three letter-of-intent
payments totaling $28 million to three airports until fiscal year 2003
or later.[Footnote 1]
Airports Recently Received About
$12 Billion a Year, Mostly from Bonds and Federal Sources:
From 1999 through 2001, the 3,364 airports that make up the national
airport system received an average of about $12 billion per year for
planned capital development. The single largest source of these funds
was bonds, followed by AIP grants and passenger facility charges. (See
table 2.) It is important to note that the authorized AIP funding for
fiscal years 2002 and 2003 totaled $3.3 billion and $3.4 billion,
respectively. However, because data for funding from other sources were
not available for these years, we used the figures from 1999 through
2001, the most recent years for which consistent data were available.
Table 2: Sources of Airport Funding:
[See PDF for image]
[End of table]
Source: GAO, FAA, and Thomson Financial.
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
[A] Amounts expressed in inflation-adjusted 2001 dollars.
[B] Net of refinancing. Of this total, $1.43 billion per year
represented
the proceeds of special facility bonds, which are secured by revenue
pledges from the indebted facility and issued on behalf of nonairport
beneficiaries, such as airlines.
[C] Since the passage of AIR-21 in 2000, annual AIP funding has been at
or above $3.2 billion. Before that, it was less than $2 billion.
[D] Airports have been eligible to charge $4.50 since fiscal year 2001.
Before that, the ceiling was $3.00.
[E] Net operating revenue in excess of a minimum coverage ratio of 125
percent of the debt service (principal and interest payments) for
commercial-service airports. For general aviation and reliever
airports, amounts are calculated as net operating revenue.
[F] Does not include local grants and loans for commercial-service
airports because we found no data to document the amounts from these
sources.
The amount and type of funding vary depending on the airport‘s size.
For example, as shown in figure 2, the large-and medium-hub airports
depend primarily on bonds, while the smaller airports rely principally
on AIP grants. Passenger facility charges are a more important source
of revenue for the large-and medium-hub airports because they have the
majority of commercial-service passengers.
Figure 2: Distribution of Sources of Funding, by Airport Type:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Notes: The 1999 and 2000 figures were converted to inflation-adjusted
2001 dollars.
Special facility bonds are secured by the revenue from the indebted
facility for projects such as terminals, hangars, and maintenance
facilities, rather than by the airport‘s general revenue.
Past Funding Levels Would Cover All of FAA‘s Planned Development
Estimate but Would Fall About $3 Billion Short of ACI‘s Estimate:
If the funding for airport capital development remains at about $12
billion a year over the next 5 years, it would cover all of the
projects in FAA‘s estimate. However, it would be about $3 billion less
per year than ACI‘s estimate. Figure 3 compares the average annual
funding airports received from 1999 through 2001 with FAA‘s and ACI‘s
estimated annual planned development costs for 2001 through 2006. This
difference is not an absolute predictor of future funding shortfalls;
both funding and planned development may change in the future. However,
it does provide a useful indication of where funding differences may be
the greatest.
Figure 3: Recent Average Annual Funding Compared with Estimates of
Annual Planned Development Costs:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Funding Difference Would Affect Smaller Airports Proportionally More
Than Larger Airports:
In percentage terms, the difference between recent funding levels and
ACI‘s estimate of planned capital development is somewhat greater for
smaller airports than it is for large-and medium-hub airports. From
1999 through 2001, smaller airports received an average of about $2.4
billion a year for planned capital development while large-and medium-
hub airports received an average of about $9.4 billion. If these
funding levels continued, smaller airports would not be able to fund
about 27 percent of their planned development, while large-and medium-
hub airports would not be able to fund about 20 percent of their
planned development. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the differences between
recent funding levels and the costs of planned capital development
projected for smaller and for large-and medium-hub airports.
Figure 4: Average Annual Funding Compared with Estimated Annual Planned
Capital Development for Smaller Airports:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: Totals may not add because of rounding.
Figure 5: Average Annual Funding Compared with Estimated Annual Planned
Capital Development for Large-and Medium-Hub Airports:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: The total for average annual funding may not add because of
rounding.
Ability to Fund Planned Capital Development Has Improved for Both
Smaller and Larger Airports:
The difference between past funding and planned development has
declined over the past 5 years, and, at recent funding levels, airports
would be able to fund a higher percentage of their planned capital
development than they could fund in 1998. At that time, we reported
that smaller airports could fund about 52 percent of their planned
capital development, compared with about 73 percent today, which
represents an increase of 21 percent. We also reported that large-and
medium-hub airports were able to fund about 80 percent of their
development and are able to fund the same amount today.[Footnote 2] See
figure 6.
Figure 6: Ability of Smaller and Larger Airports to Fund Estimated
Planned Capital Development in 1998 and 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The primary reason why smaller airports can fund more of their planned
capital development today than they could in 1998 is that AIR-21
increased both the total amount of funding for AIP grants and the
proportion of AIP funding that went to smaller airports. Specifically,
AIR-21 increased the funding for two AIP funds that primarily or
exclusively benefit smaller airports--the state apportionment fund and
the small airport fund--and it created general aviation entitlement
grants, which also benefit smaller airports.[Footnote 3] As a result of
these changes, smaller airports received almost 63 percent of the $2.4
billion in AIP grant funds that airports received each year, on
average, from 1999 through 2001. Large-and medium-hub airports can also
fund more of their planned development today than they could in 1998
primarily because they are able to issue more bonds and to charge a
higher passenger facility fee.
Options Are Available to Address Difference between Funding and Planned
Development:
Options are available to increase airport funding or to make better use
of the existing funding. These options, some of which were authorized
or implemented as part of AIR-21, include increasing the AIP grant
funding for smaller airports, increasing passenger facility charges,
creating a separate fund for new security projects, and using
innovative financing approaches. The various options would benefit
different types of airports to varying degrees. It is also important to
note that even though the airlines may be experiencing financial
problems, most large airports have very solid credit ratings and could,
if necessary, issue more debt without facing exorbitant interest rates.
To help address the difference between funding and planned development,
AIR-21 provided that up to $150,000 a year in AIP grant funds be made
available to all general aviation airports for up to 3 years for
airfield capital projects, such as runways, taxiways, and airfield
construction and maintenance projects. On February 11, 2003, we
reported that since the program‘s inception in fiscal year 2001,
general aviation airports have received about $325 million, which they
have used primarily to help build runways, purchase navigational aids,
and maintain pavements and airfield lighting.[Footnote 4] Most of the
state aviation officials and general aviation airport managers we
surveyed said the grants were useful in meeting their needs, and some
suggested that the $150,000 grant limit be increased so that general
aviation airports could undertake larger projects. However, a number of
state officials cautioned that an increase in the general aviation
entitlement grant could cause a decrease in the state apportionment
fund that states use to address their aviation priorities.
Another option would be to increase or eliminate the cap on passenger
facility charges. This option would primarily benefit larger airports,
because passenger facility charges are a function of the volume of
passenger traffic. However, under AIP, large-and medium-hub airports
that collect passenger facility charges must forfeit a certain
percentage of their AIP formula funds. These forfeited funds are
subsequently divided between the small airport fund, which is to
receive 87.5 percent, and the discretionary fund, which is to receive
12.5 percent. Thus, smaller airports would benefit indirectly from any
increase in passenger facility charges. In our 1999 report on passenger
facility charges,[Footnote 5] we estimated that a small increase in
these charges would have a modest effect on passenger traffic. At that
time, we estimated that each $1 increase would reduce passenger levels
by about 0.5 to 1.8 percent, with a midrange estimate of 0.85 percent.
Since AIR-21 raised the cap on passenger facility charges from $3.00 to
$4.50, the full effect of the increase has not been realized because
only 17 of the 31 large-hub airports (55 percent) and 11 of the 37
medium-hub airports (30 percent) have increased their rates to $4.50.
Additionally, 3 large-hub airports and 6 medium-hub airports do not
charge a passenger facility fee. The reluctance to raise passenger
facility charges is likely the result of several factors, including the
views of airlines, which are opposed to any increase in passenger
facility charges because such an increase would raise passenger costs
and reduce passenger traffic. Nonetheless, if all airports were to
increase passenger facility charges to the current ceiling, additional
revenue could be generated.
Recently, the head of the Transportation Security Administration
suggested setting up a separate fund for security projects. Such a fund
might be comparable to AIP, which receives revenue from various
aviation-related taxes through the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
Having a separate fund would be consistent with the recent separation
of aviation safety and security responsibilities.
FAA has introduced other mechanisms to make better use of existing
funding sources, the most successful of which has been letters of
intent, a tool that has effectively leveraged private sources of
funding. As noted, letters of intent represents a nonbinding commitment
from FAA to provide multiyear funding to an airport beyond the current
AIP authorization period. Thus, the letter allows the airport to
proceed with a project without waiting for a future AIP grant because
the airport and investors know that allowable costs are likely to be
reimbursed. A letter of intent may also enable an airport to receive a
more favorable interest rate on bonds that are sold to refinance a
project because the federal government has indicated its support for
the project. FAA has issued 64 letters of intent with a total
commitment of about $3 billion; large-and medium-hub airports account
for the majority of the total.
Other approaches to making better use of existing funding resources
were authorized under AIR-21. Specifically, the act authorized FAA to
continue its innovative finance demonstration program, which is
designed to test the ability of innovative financing approaches to make
more efficient use of AIP funding. Under this program, FAA enabled
airports to leverage additional funds or lower development costs by (1)
permitting flexible local matching on some projects, (2) purchasing
commercial bond insurance, (3) paying interest costs on debt, and (4)
paying principal and interest debt service on terminal development
costs incurred before the enactment of AIR-21. FAA has provided about
$31 million for smaller airports to test these innovative uses of AIP
funding. According to FAA officials, the results of the program have
been mixed. The most popular option for airports has been flexible
matching, which has resulted in several creative loan arrangements.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the aviation industry and the national
economy are still struggling to recover their health. Analysts
nonetheless expect the demand for air travel to rebound, and the
nation‘s aviation system must be ready to accommodate the projected
growth safely and securely. As the Congress moves forward with
reauthorizing FAA, it will have to decide on several key issues,
including how it wants to consider the airports‘ estimate of $15
billion a year for planned capital development over the next 5 years,
how terminal modification projects will be funded, and what priorities
it wants to set, both for development and security. Sustaining recent
funding levels would allow the majority of planned airport capital
development to move forward, but it would not cover all of the
airports‘ estimated costs, and it would not address the costly terminal
modifications needed to accommodate explosives detection systems.
Options such as additional AIP grant funds, increases in passenger
facility charges, or the creation of a separate fund for new security
projects could make more funding available for airport improvements.
However, the growing competition for federal budget dollars and
concerns about the impact of higher charges on airline ticket sales may
limit the practicality of these options.
Scope and Methodology:
To determine how much planned development would cost over the next 5
years, we obtained planned development data from FAA and ACI. ACI
provided its estimate to us in January 2003, and we are still analyzing
the data on which the estimate is based. To determine the sources of
airport funding, we obtained capital funding data from FAA, the
National Association of State Aviation Officials, Thomson Financial,
and our survey of 400 general aviation and reliever airports. We
obtained funding data from 1999 through 2001 because these were the
most recent years for which consistent data were available. We screened
the planned development and funding data for accuracy and compared
funding streams across databases where possible. We also clarified
ambiguous development or funding source information directly with
airports. We did not, however, audit how the databases were compiled,
except for our own survey. However, we have not finished analyzing the
results of our survey, and the results presented in this testimony are
still preliminary.
We have been performing our ongoing work from May 2002 through February
2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions
that you or other members of the Subcommittee might have.
Contact information:
For further information on this testimony, please contact Gerald
Dillingham at (202) 512-2834. Individuals making key contributions to
this testimony include Jon Altshul, Tammy Conquest, Elizabeth
Eisenstadt, Gary Lawson, David Lehrer, Maren McAvoy, and Richard
Swayze.
(540054):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Letters of intent represent a nonbinding commitment from FAA to
provide multiyear funding to airports beyond the current authorization
period. This commitment enables airports to proceed with projects
without waiting for future AIP grant funds because it provides
reasonable assurance of reimbursement for allowable costs.
[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Airport Financing: Annual Funding
As Much As $3 Billion Less Than Planned Development, GAO/T-RCED-99-84
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10, 1999).
[3] Moreover, if we replaced the AIP figures for 1999 through 2001 with
the AIP figures appropriated for fiscal year 2002 and authorized for
fiscal year 2003 in our analysis, assuming no changes in the
distribution of AIP funds, smaller airports would be able to cover even
more of the estimated cost of their planned development because AIP
grant funds for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 are about $1 billion more
than the average annual AIP funding for 1999 through 2001. Because data
for funding from other sources were not available for these years, we
used the figures from 1999 through 2001, the most recent years for
which consistent data were available.
[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Aviation Finance: Implementation of
General Aviation Entitlement Grants, GAO-03-347 (Washington, D.C.: Feb.
11, 2003).
[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Passenger Facility Charges: Program
Implementation and the Potential Effects of Proposed Changes, GAO/RCED-
99-138 (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 1999).
