Federal Role in Airport Funding
In the early years of commercial aviation, numerous private
airports operated alongside those established by state and local
governments.2 In 1924 Henry Ford opened an airport in
Dearborn, Michigan, which would become the site of numerous
innovations, including the first paved runway, the first airport
hotel, and the first modern terminal facility. In Miami, the
International Pan American Airport operated from 1933 to 1945. This
large and sophisticated facility was the hub for Pan Am’s extensive
services to Central and South America.
The Los Angeles area had two major private airports. In Burbank,
the Lockheed Air Terminal operated from 1930 until 1978, when it
was sold to a local government authority. Today it is the Hollywood
Burbank Airport. In Glendale, the Grand Central Air Terminal
operated from 1929 to 1959.3 During the 1930s, it was the main
airport in Southern California. Grand Central had the first paved
runway west of the Rockies, and it was home to the first air
service between Los Angeles and New York. The airport had a close
association with famous names in aviation, including Charles
Lindbergh, Amelia Earhart, Howard Hughes, and Jack Northrop.
Philadelphia’s main airport from 1929 to 1940 was the private
Central Airport in Camden, New Jersey. It was serviced by all four
major airlines, and had three runways and the most modern
equipment. Meanwhile, the main airport serving the nation’s capital
from 1930 to 1941 was the private Washington-Hoover Airport in
Despite the impressive efforts of the early airport
entrepreneurs, the industry soon became dominated by
government-owed facilities. Many city governments were eager to own
their own airports, even if private airports already served an
area. Cities were able to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance their
facilities, which gave them a financial edge over private airports.
And beginning in the 1920s, the U.S. military and the Post Office
were promoting government-owned airports over private ones.4
During the 1930s, the federal government provided large amounts
of aid through New Deal programs to government-owned
airports.5 The effects were immediate in some
cities. In Dayton, Ohio, the private owners of the city’s major
airport leased the facility to the city in 1934 to secure some of
the New Deal aid.6 And then in 1936, the airport owners
handed over full ownership to the city government.
Federal aid began causing a similar crowding out of private
airports across the country. In the early 1930s, about half the
nation’s more than 1,100 airports were private, but by the late
1930s the number of public airports substantially outnumbered the
When World War II began, Congress appropriated funds to
construct and improve 250 government-owned airports for national
defense purposes.8 Then in 1944, the Surplus Property Act
transferred excess military bases to state and local governments
for public airport use.
The Federal Airport Act of 1946 began regular federal aid to
government-owned airports, initially providing $500 million over
seven years.9 Once again, the justification for
federal aid was the link to national defense.
The coming of jet aircraft and concerns about aviation safety
spurred Congress to create the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) in 1958. The new agency replaced previous agencies involved
in air traffic control and airport development. Clifford Winston of
the Brookings Institution says that after it was established, the
FAA “prohibited private airports from offering commercial
Congress started taxing aviation soon after it was established.
It passed an excise tax on aviation fuels in 1932 and an excise tax
on airline tickets in 1941. The revenue from these levies initially
went into the government’s general fund. That changed in 1970 when
Congress created the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF), which
channeled aviation taxes and fees into funding for air traffic
control and state and local airports.
The AATF currently raises about $15 billion annually from a 7.5
percent tax on domestic airline tickets, taxes on aviation fuels,
international departure and arrival taxes, and a number of other
charges.11 The AATF revenues pay for the bulk of
the FAA’s budget, with the balance coming from general federal
Most FAA spending goes toward ATC operations and ATC capital
investment. But about $3.2 billion a year goes to the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP), which funds capital projects at
airports, such as runway expansions. The money is doled out both
through formula and discretionary grants under a complex set of
rules and regulations.12Another source of funding for
airport investment is the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC), which
was authorized by Congress in 1990. PFCs are imposed by state and
local airport agencies, but Congress sets a maximum charge, which
since 2000 has been $4.50 per passenger per flight segment.
Large airports rely more on PFC funding, and less on AIP grants,
than small airports. Large airports also receive substantial
revenue from commercial sources, including landing fees, airline
space rentals, parking and rental car fees, and retail concessions.
Smaller airports with less commercial airline service often rely on
grants from state and local governments, in addition to AIP
Current federal airport funding mechanisms are problematic. One
issue is that Congress has kept AIP funding roughly flat for 15
years, even though U.S. aviation demand has grown.13 Another
issue is that the allocation of AIP spending is determined by
political and bureaucratic factors, not by marketplace demands, so
the money is spent inefficiently. The 100 largest airports, which
get the vast bulk of passengers, receive a relatively small share
of AIP funding, while small airports receive a disproportionately
The inefficient AIP funding would not be much of a problem
except that Congress puts airports in a financial bind by imposing
the PFC cap. The cap limits the ability of airports to fund their
own improvements, and thus tackle their own growth and congestion
challenges independently from Washington.
Airport Privatization around the World
The private sector plays a larger role in the aviation
infrastructure of other countries than the United States. Hundreds
of airports around the world have been partly or fully
privatized.15 There are dozens of international
companies that own and operate airports, finance airport
privatization, or participate in projects to finance, build, and
operate new airports and airport terminals.
Airport privatization has been part of a broader privatization
revolution that has swept the world since the 1980s.16 Governments in more than 100
countries have moved thousands of state-owned businesses to the
private sector. Airports, airlines, and many other types of
businesses valued at more than $3.3 trillion have been privatized
over the past three decades.17
The privatization revolution was launched by Margaret Thatcher’s
government in the United Kingdom, which came to power in 1979. Her
government privatized dozens of major businesses, including British
Airways and British Airports Authority, which owned London’s
Heathrow and a half dozen other airports.
Other nations followed the British lead on privatization because
of a “disillusionment with the generally poor performance of
state-owned enterprises and the desire to improve efficiency of
bloated and often failing companies,” noted a report on
privatization by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
For airports, privatization can be thought of along a continuum
from fully government facilities to fully private. Although U.S.
airports are owned by state and local governments, they contract
out numerous services to private firms, such as retail concessions.
A few U.S. airports-such as Albany International-have taken a step
further and contracted with private firms to manage overall airport
operations. And a few U.S. airports have entered long-term
agreements with private firms to design, build, and manage new
terminals. Terminal 5 at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport and
Terminal 4 at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport are
examples. But, generally, U.S. airports are run by governments as
static utilities, not as entrepreneurial businesses.
Abroad, many airports are owned and operating as for-profit
businesses, often as publicly traded corporations. Britain led the
way with the 1987 privatization of British Airports Authority.
Today, most major British airports are corporations that are either
mainly or fully private.
In other countries, many airports have been privatized in the
form of long-term leases. Such leases shift risks,
responsibilities, and growth incentives to the airport company. In
Canada, reforms during the 1990s established the nation’s top 26
airports as self-funded nonprofit corporations. The airport
companies generally have 60-year leases from the federal
government, and they are fully responsible for management,
operations, and capital investment.
Privatized airports fund their operations through charges on
passengers, airlines, advertising, and returns from airport retail
and parking concessions. The Canadian airport companies not only
cover their own costs, but they also make payments in lieu of taxes
to municipal governments and make lease payments to the federal
Back in the 1930s, private airports in the United States were
entrepreneurial in generating revenues. Airports such as Grand
Central in California and Central in New Jersey earned a
substantial share of their income from on-site amenities such as
hotels, restaurants, swimming pools, sightseeing flights, air
shows, and mini golf.20
A 2016 study by Airports Council International (ACI) found that
47 percent of airports in the 28 European Union (EU) countries are
either “mostly” or “fully” private, which is up from 23 percent in
2010.21 Since the largest airports in Europe
tend to be the ones that have been privatized, the ACI study found
that 75 percent of passenger trips in the EU are now through
According to the ACI study, there are 60 “fully private”
airports in the EU, including the main airports in Antwerp,
Budapest, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Lisbon, Liverpool, Ljubljana, London,
and Zagreb. In addition, the study found that the main airports in
Birmingham, Brussels, Copenhagen, Florence, Naples, Rome, Venice,
Vienna, Zurich, and numerous other cities are “mostly private,”
which generally means that they are structured as corporations and
the private sector holds a majority of the shares.
Even the government-owned airports in Europe are often
structured as commercial enterprises. For example, Charles de
Gaulle airport in Paris is operated by a corporation that is 51
percent held by the French government and 49 percent held by other
shareholders. Similarly, the 46 major airports in Spain are owned
by a publicly traded corporation that is 51 percent held by the
Spanish government and 49 percent privately held.
The movement toward privatization is occurring
worldwide.22 Australia privatized more than a
dozen of its major airports. New Zealand privatized two of its
three largest airports. Mexico has privatized numerous airports.
Brazil sold 51 percent of five major airports in 2012 and 2013,
including the main airports in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. Japan
has passed legislation authorizing the sale of two dozen or so
airports in coming years, and Saudi Arabia is moving ahead with
plans to privatize two dozen of its airports.
Advantages of Privatization
Globally, privatization has been a successful reform in many
industries. An OECD report reviewed the academic research and found
“overwhelming support for the notion that privatization brings
about a significant increase in the profitability, real output and
efficiency of privatized companies.”23 And a review
of studies in the Journal of Economic Literature concluded
that privatization “appears to improve performance measured in many
different ways, in many different countries.”24
For airports, some of the benefits of privatization include
greater operating efficiency, improved amenities, and increased
capital investment. American airports need such improvements. The
American Society of Civil Engineers gave our aviation
infrastructure a low grade of D in its most recent report.25 That is not surprising given that our
airports and air traffic control are government-owned
In a Brookings Institution book, transportation scholars Steven
Morrison and Clifford Winston summarized their recommendations for
U.S. aviation infrastructure:
In our view, excessive travel delays are-to a significant
extent-a manifestation of the failure of publicly owned and managed
airports and air traffic control to adopt policies and introduce
innovations that could greatly improve the efficiency of the U.S.
air transportation system. Given little economic incentive and
saddled with institutional and political constraints, major
airports and the air traffic control system have not exhibited any
marked improvement in their performance for decades despite
repeated assurances that they would do so …
Some observers believe that delays would be reduced if the
nation invested more money in airports and air traffic control.
However, the returns from such spending would be compromised by the
system’s vast inefficiencies. Thus, the key to reducing delays
efficiently is to rid the system of its major inefficiencies. We
believe that can be accomplished only by privatizing the nation’s
Privatization and increased competition would boost the
performance of our aviation infrastructure. It would reduce costs
and encourage more efficient pricing structures for airport and air
traffic control usage.27 Airlines, passengers, private
plane owners, and taxpayers would all benefit from a more
entrepreneurial and commercial approach to airport operation.
The ACI report concluded that there is “no denying the tangible
benefits” of market-based reforms in Europe’s airport industry,
including “significant volumes of investment in necessary
infrastructure, higher service quality levels, and a commercial
acumen which allows airport operators to diversify revenue streams
and minimize the costs that users have to pay.”28 In
Britain, privatization has created a highly dynamic and efficient
industry with substantial competition between airports and lots of
new entry by low-cost airlines.29
The need to privatize airports can be partly traced back to
airline deregulation in 1978. President Jimmy Carter signed into
law the Airline Deregulation Act, which removed government controls
over airline fares, routes, entry, and mergers. Under deregulation,
prices fell and the volume of air travel increased dramatically.
Airlines reconfigured their routes, updated their equipment, and
improved their capacity utilization. New airlines opened for
business. Consumers saved tens of billions of dollars a year from
However, it is also true that today’s airline service leaves
much to be desired because of delays, crowded planes, and other
inconveniences. If service by some airlines in some markets is
lacking, why haven’t entrepreneurs offered better alternatives? It
turns out that many are trying, but they often have difficulty
obtaining gates at airports. Airline deregulation is an unfinished
reform until it includes airport deregulation and
Many U.S. airports are still run in a bureaucratic manner
typical of the pre-deregulation era. Their management is passive
and risk-averse compared to the leading privatized airports abroad.
Research by Oxford University scholars has shown that the
managements of privatized airports are more “passenger friendly”
than those of traditional airports.30 And a
statistical study of airport productivity in 109 airports worldwide
looked at whether ownership was correlated with productivity. It
found that privatized and corporatized airports are more productive
than fully government-owned airports.31
Privatization offers a clear advantage when it comes to capital
investments. Government transportation investments-whether
airports, highways, or air traffic control systems-often experience
large cost overruns. In the 1990s, for example, the construction of
Denver International Airport more than doubled in cost from the
original estimates.32 Such cost overruns are one reason why
many nations are partly privatizing infrastructure through
public-private partnerships (PPPs or P3s). PPPs can shift the
financing, management, operations, and risks of projects to the
A McKinsey & Company report on infrastructure noted that
cost overruns were about seven times more likely on traditional
government projects than PPP projects.33 And an
Australian study that compared 21 PPP infrastructure projects with
33 traditional projects found: “PPPs demonstrate clearly superior
cost efficiency over traditional procurement … PPPs provide
superior performance in both the cost and time dimensions.”34
Another advantage of airport privatization is that it would
enhance competition between airlines. Private airport managers are
more willing to take the risks of new investments, including the
creation of new gates for additional flights and airlines. Private
airports try to attract new carriers to earn added revenues and
profits. By contrast, current U.S. airport agreements with major
incumbent airlines often give the airlines what amounts to veto
power over terminal expansions, called majority-in-interest
Also, major incumbent airlines in current U.S. airports often
have exclusive-use agreements for gates. From the standpoint of
risk-averse airport managers, these long-term agreements give them
a guaranteed revenue stream. But when new-entrant airlines want to
start service to such airports, there may be no gates available,
which reduces competition. Even if there are gates available,
Steven Morrison and Clifford Winston note that dominant incumbent
airlines can “prevent competitors from having access even to gates
that are little used.”36
By contrast, experience has shown that privatized airports
generally do not cede de facto control over their facilities to the
large airlines. At privatized airports, the gates typically remain
under the control of the airport company, and they are allocated to
individual airlines as needed, sometimes even hour by hour.
In sum, airline competition would be enhanced if we reformed the
current ownership and management structures of U.S. airports. Much
of the world is moving to a new paradigm-the airport as a private
business enterprise-that is more consistent with today’s dynamic
economy and demanding aviation consumers.
Hurdles to U.S. Privatization
Why has the United States resisted the sort of airport
restructuring that is occurring abroad?37 One factor
has been that state and local governments can issue tax-exempt
bonds to finance public airports, but private airports would have
to rely on taxable bonds. The result is that financing is less
costly for establishing and expanding government-owned airports
than private airports.
The best way to fix this financing bias would be to eliminate
the state and local interest exemption under the federal income
tax. But short of such a reform, federal policymakers should
consider allowing private airport developers to issue tax-exempt
revenue bonds (private activity bonds), as policymakers have
allowed in toll highway projects.
Another hurdle to private airport development is that only
government-owned airports are eligible for federal airport
subsidies (except for airports in the Pilot Program, as discussed
below). The combination of federal subsidies and tax-exempt
financing for government-owned airports makes it difficult for
entrepreneurs to enter the airport business and compete with
If a state and local government wants to privatize an existing
airport, yet another hurdle is that federal law generally requires
the repayment of previous federal grants received by an airport.
Moreover, all lease or sale proceeds from privatization must be
used for airport reinvestment, according to FAA rules. That
prevents a state or city from selling its airport and using the
proceeds for other infrastructure projects or for the general
If these federal rules were not enough of a hurdle, a final
barrier to privatization has been opposition from the airlines.
They worry that they might face more competition under
privatization and have to pay the full market-based costs of
airport services. Typically, major airlines are like anchor tenants
in shopping malls. They often have lease-and-use agreements at
airports that give them control over terminals or concourses and
the right to approve or veto capital spending plans. That gives
them the power to oppose airport expansion if it would mean more
Airlines have also resisted eliminating the federal cap on PFCs.
Eliminating the cap would allow airports to raise more of their own
funding for expansion. PFCs are a useful funding source for
airports to increase gate capacity, but airlines tend to disfavor
the greater competition that new gates would bring.
State and local governments add their own hurdles to private
airport development. Government-owned airports do not pay state or
federal income taxes, and they are generally exempt from property
taxes. By contrast, a private for-profit airport would have to pay
income and property taxes. Private airports may also face higher
tort liability risks than government airports do.38
Privatization Pilot Program
In the 1990s some state and local officials saw what Margaret
Thatcher had done in Britain and were inspired to try and sell or
lease their own airports. Congress responded by passing the Airport
Privatization Pilot Program in 1996.39 The program
allows exemptions from onerous provisions of airport grant
agreements for up to 10 U.S. airports. Cities whose airports are
accepted for the program do not have to repay previous federal
grants, and they are allowed to keep airport sale or lease
However, the airlines lobbied to include a provision specifying
that to keep sale or lease proceeds from a privatization, a city
has to get the approval of 65 percent of the airlines serving an
airport. So airlines can often block privatization if, for example,
they believe it would increase competition. Also, privatized
airports in the program are eligible for less generous grants under
the AIP, and the process of applying to the FAA for the Pilot
Program is costly and time-consuming.40
For these and other reasons, the program has had little success.
The first airport privatized under the 1996 Pilot Program was
Stewart International Airport north of New York City. The airport
was operated under a 99-year lease by the National Express Group.
But that lease was later terminated by mutual consent, and the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey gained control of the
Chicago tried twice to privatize Midway Airport via the Pilot
Program. In 2008 it selected a winning bidder, but the deal could
not be financed because of the credit market crunch at the time. A
second attempt ended up with only a single bidder, apparently due
to the restrictive conditions on the proposed lease. Without
competing bids, in 2013 the city decided not to proceed.
The only airport currently privatized under the program is Luis
Munoz Marin International in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The winning bid
was submitted by the Aerostar consortium, and the deal was
finalized in 2013. The company paid $615 million up-front and
agreed to invest $1.2 billion in the airport over the 40-year term
of the lease. Aerostar will also share airport revenue with the
government. So far, the company has made renovations to the
airport’s two terminals, including new retail stores and automatic
Another slot in the Pilot Program is held by Hendry County,
Florida. It plans to lease Airglades Airport to a consortium for
conversion into a cargo reliever airport for Miami International.
The consortium has received an initial contract to manage the
airport while its application waits for final approval from the
FAA. Some other airports have considered applying for the Pilot
Program, but progress has been slow.
One positive development is that a small but growing number of
U.S. airports have management contracts with private companies.
Indianapolis International Airport, for example, completed a
successful management contract with a British airport company.
Other contract-managed airports include Albany, Burbank, and White
The Pilot Program has been a step in the right direction, but much
larger reforms are needed to spur private investment in U.S.
airports. One important step would be to reduce or eliminate the
income tax exemption for municipal bonds to put private airport
financing on a level playing field with government financing.
Another step would be to remove the 65 percent supermajority
requirement that lets airlines block privatization.
Congress should also phase out the AIP program (at least for
medium and large commercial airports) to encourage greater
self-funding of airport capital spending. It should also eliminate
the cap on PFCs to allow airports to fund operations through user
charges on their own passengers. PFCs are a more direct and
transparent revenue source than the AIP program.41 PFCs and other
airport-generated revenues can enhance airline competition by
providing funding to build new gates and other facilities to
attract additional flights and carriers.
Opening up our aviation infrastructure to businesses and
entrepreneurs would benefit the traveling public by encouraging
additional investment and greater competition. America has a
remarkable history of aviation innovation, but we need major policy
reforms to ensure that our infrastructure remains at the leading
edge in today’s global economy.
“Infrastructure” at the Trump campaign website
Studies that discuss early airport history include: National Park
Service, “American Aviation Heritage: Identifying and Evaluating
National Significant Properties in U.S. Aviation History,” March
2011; Deborah Gwen Douglas, “The Invention of Airports: A Political
, Economic and Technological History of Airports in the United
States, 1919-1939,” PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania,
1996; Janet R. Daly Bednarek, America’s Airports: Airfield
Development, 1918-1947 (College Station, TX: Texas A&M
University Press, 2001); and Janet R. Daly Bednarek, “Innovation in
America’s Aviation Support Infrastructure,” in Innovation and
the Development of Flight, ed. Roger D. Launius (College
Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1999).
airfield was privately developed before 1920, but was redeveloped
in 1929 as the Grand Central Air Terminal. After World War II, it
was the Grand Central Airport, and it went into decline as the Los
Angeles government-owned airport expanded.
Bednarek, “Innovation in America’s Aviation Support
Infrastructure,” p. 59.
the end of the 1930s, federal funding of airport investment through
New Deal programs had surpassed state and local funding. See
Douglas, p. 601.
Bednarek, “Innovation in America’s Aviation Support
Infrastructure,” pp. 69, 70.
Douglas, pp. 299, 598.
United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Airport
System Development,” August 1984, p. 209.
National Park Service, p. 201.
Clifford Winston, Last Exit: Privatization and Deregulation of
the U.S. Transportation System (Washington: Brookings
Institution Press, 2010), p. 9.
Bart Elias and Rachel Y. Tang, “Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In
Brief,” Congressional Research Service, R42781, September 27, 2016,
Rachel Y. Tang and Robert S. Kirk, “Financing Airport
Improvements,” Congressional Research Service, R43327, March 24,
2016. See also Michael Sargent, “End of the Runway: Rethinking the
Airport Improvement Program and the Federal Role in Airport
Funding,” Heritage Foundation, November 2016.
Tang and Kirk, p. 4.
Clifford Winston, “On the Performance of the U.S. Transportation
System: Caution Ahead,” Journal of Economic Literature 51,
no. 3 (September 2013): 790.
The Government Accountability Office notes: “at least 450 airports
around the world have been privatized to some degree.” Government
Accountability Office, “Airport Privatization: Limited Interest
despite FAA’s Pilot Program,” GAO-15-42, November 2014, Executive
Chris Edwards, “Options for Federal Privatization and Reforms
Lessons from Abroad,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 794, June
Worldwide privatization proceeds between 1988 and August 2015 were
$3.26 trillion. See William L. Megginson, “Privatization Trends and
Major Deals in 2014 and Two-Thirds 2015,” in The PB Report
2014/2015, Privatization Barometer,
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
Privatising State-Owned Enterprises (Paris: OECD, 2003),
There is concern that the Canadian lease payments are too high,
which is harming airports and subsidizing the Canadian government.
This contrasts with U.S. airports, which receive government
Douglas, p. 303. And see Bednarek, America’s Airports: Airfield
Development, 1918-1947, pp. 83-86.
Airports Council International (Europe), “The Ownership of Europe’s
Airports, 2016,” 2016.
The International Civil Aviation Organization has written case
studies on aviation reforms in 26 countries. See International
Civil Aviation Organization, “Case Studies on Commercialization,
Privatization and Economic Oversight of Airports and Air Navigation
Services Providers,” August 2013.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, p. 9.
William L. Megginson and Jeffry M. Netter, “From State to Market: A
Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization,” Journal of
Economic Literature 39, no. 2 (June 2001): 25.
American Society of Civil Engineers, “Report Card for America’s
Steven A. Morrison and Clifford Winston, “Delayed! U.S. Aviation
Infrastructure Policy at a Crossroads,” in Aviation
Infrastructure Performance (Washington: Brookings Institution,
2008), p. 9.
As one example, current airport landing fees are generally based on
weight and not time of day, so pricing is not structured to help
reduce congestion. Clifford Winston, “On the Performance of the
U.S. Transportation System: Caution Ahead,” p. 788.
Airports Council International (Europe), p. 1.
David Starkie, “The Airport Industry in a Competitive Environment:
A United Kingdom Perspective,” Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, July 2008.
Research described in Asheesh Advani, “Passenger-Friendly Airports:
Another Reason for Airport Privatization,” Reason Public Policy
Institute, March 1, 1999.
Tae H. Oum, Jia Yan, and Chunyan Yu, “Ownership Forms Matter for
Airport Efficiency: A Stochastic Frontier Investigation of
Worldwide Airports,” Journal of Urban Economics 64, no. 2
Chris Edwards and Nicole Kaeding, “Federal Government Cost
Overruns,” DownsizingGovernment.org, Cato Institute, September 1,
McKinsey & Company, “Rethinking Infrastructure: Voices from the
Global Infrastructure Initiative,” May 2014, p. 23. The report
looked at greenfield projects. See also Frederic Blanc-Brude and
Dejan Makovsek, “Construction in Infrastructure Project Finance,”
EDHEC Business School (France) Working Paper, February 2013.
Allen Consulting Group and the University of Melbourne,
“Performance of PPPs and Traditional Procurement in Australia,”
November 30, 2007.
Clifford Winston, “On the Performance of the U.S. Transportation
System: Caution Ahead,” p. 806.
Morrison and Winston, p. 21.
For further background on issues in this section, see Government
Accountability Office, “Airport Privatization: Limited Interest
despite FAA’s Pilot Program,” GAO-15-42, November 2014.
Government Accountability Office, p. 22.
For further background on the pilot program, see Government
Accountability Office, and see Rachel Y. Tang, “Airport
Privatization: Issues and Options for Congress,” Congressional
Research Service, R43545, February 3, 2016.
Government Accountability Office, p. 23.
Marc Scribner, “Obama FY2015 Budget: Aviation Funding
Recommendation Not Great, But a Step in the Right Direction,”
Competitive Enterprise Institute, March 4, 2014.