As major airports invest billions in expansion and increasingly elaborate passenger amenities, Avports is pursuing a different approach: smaller, more accessible airports designed around convenience, efficiency and affordability.

With plans to introduce scheduled commercial service at Washington Manassas Airport in Northern Virginia, Avports is demonstrating how secondary airports can complement established hubs while creating opportunities for airlines and travelers.

AviationPros Editor Jenny Lescohier spoke with Avports CEO Marc Ricks about the economics of smaller airports and how the nation's airport landscape could evolve.

Listen to the podcast here. 

AviationPros: What opportunity did Avports see in bringing commercial service to Washington Manassas Airport, particularly with three major airports already serving the region?

Marc Ricks: Our ideal opportunity is an airport in a heavily populated metropolitan area where there's an underserved geography, customer profile or airline market.

Washington Manassas fits that description. We're not looking to replace the three existing airports, but to supplement them.

Reagan National is convenient but highly congested, limiting growth opportunities. Dulles offers fantastic connectivity, but its complicated operating environment can be less attractive for shorter trips. And BWI has excellent low-cost alternatives, but it's not particularly accessible to Northern Virginia.

We see an opportunity for a conveniently located airport offering an affordable environment where carriers, especially low-cost carriers, can thrive.

This isn't a novel concept. New York's three major airports are complemented by Westchester County, Long Island MacArthur and Trenton. These airports can work together as a system rather than competing with one another.

AviationPros: Is there a particular type of passenger you're targeting?

Ricks: Smaller airports are almost always a passenger's first choice if they can find their destination there.

People prefer an airport closer to home, particularly when they can get to and from their gate faster. The total travel time can be dramatically lower.

These airports typically attract low-cost and ultra-low-cost carriers offering predominantly domestic, point-to-point service.

We shouldn't expect to catch a flight on our favorite Middle Eastern flag carrier to Dubai from Washington Manassas. That's not the product we're offering. But there will be plenty of destinations where passengers appreciate saving time and money.

AviationPros: What can smaller airports offer airlines, and how do you convince carriers that a new market can be profitable?

Ricks: Smaller airports have a strong value proposition, especially for low-cost carriers.

All carriers appreciate a low cost per enplanement, or CPE. With operating costs increasing, airlines are looking for opportunities to control expenses. Smaller airports tend to offer dramatically lower CPE.

Gate access can also be difficult at larger airports, particularly for newer entrants. Smaller airports offer that access while allowing carriers to differentiate their products.

That's why airlines such as Allegiant, Avelo and Breeze are connecting secondary airports through point-to-point service.

Convincing airlines starts with choosing the right projects. We conduct granular forecasts to establish genuine demand.

Then we design and build affordably. You don't need a billion-dollar terminal to deliver a fabulous passenger experience.

The most beloved airports are close to where people live, easy to navigate and offer abundant, affordable air service. It's about the air service, not the architecture.

AviationPros: So the idea is to design an airport around what the market needs rather than investing in elaborate facilities?

Ricks: Exactly. It's the right airport for the right market.

Consider the significant investments being made in international gateway terminals at JFK. Those facilities serve international carriers bringing passengers to New York City. I understand why the grandeur of that experience matters.

But at a smaller airport, efficiency and cost-effectiveness may determine whether you attract air service at all.

Take our project in New Haven, Connecticut. We've operated that airport for decades and became its developer and concessionaire in 2021-2022.

We plan to build a 60,000-square-foot terminal, but we've been operating with existing infrastructure consisting of a 94-year-old hangar and modular units. Literally, trailers.

And yet, passengers have access to more than 30 destinations at affordable fares, through Avelo and Breeze.

People get past the architecture. We'll deliver a better environment with the new terminal, but passengers care about affordable air service and convenience.

AviationPros: Major airports are increasingly becoming destinations themselves, with elaborate shopping, dining and entertainment. Your approach seems almost the opposite. How do those trends coexist?

Ricks: Airports need to be designed for their markets and customers.

We want our airports to be comfortable, inviting and efficient. I like to say passengers care most about cold beer, hot coffee, fast Wi-Fi and clean bathrooms.

But we're not trying to make the airport a destination.

At major airports, traffic, parking, security lines and walking distances mean passengers must arrive earlier. That creates opportunities to generate non-aeronautical revenue through shopping and dining.

Conversely, at our airports, passengers might arrive 45 minutes before their flight, get through security in five minutes and be ready to go.

I also see circular logic developing at some major hubs. Airports invest in architectural grandeur, then need additional revenue to pay for it. They introduce more shopping, creating pressure to make the environment even more attractive and encourage passengers to spend more time there.

That can lead to further investment and increasingly lengthy curb-to-gate times.

That approach may be appropriate for international gateways or hubs where travelers have hours between connections.

Our airports overwhelmingly serve nonstop, point-to-point destinations. Nobody is connecting. Nobody needs time to kill.

Both models serve legitimate needs, but the business imperatives are different.

AviationPros: Looking ahead 10 or 20 years, could we see significantly more smaller airports offering commercial service?

Ricks: I certainly hope so.

We're working on three projects: New Haven, Washington Manassas and in the very early stages at Long Island MacArthur. We're also discussing opportunities with other airports interested in introducing scheduled passenger service.

But this isn't an either-or proposition.

Major airports will continue serving most passengers. They'll absorb significant growth, but infrastructure limitations, permitting challenges and escalating costs mean they can't absorb all of it.

Smaller airports have a role in accommodating that demand.

Look at New Haven. It's grown from almost no enplaned passengers to nearly 800,000 last year, serving 34 destinations.

We can be tremendously successful without posing a significant competitive threat to larger airports because we're expanding the travel market.

Imagine someone in Connecticut who previously drove two hours to LaGuardia to visit family in Florida once a year.

Now they can drive 15 minutes to Tweed New Haven Airport and catch an affordable nonstop flight. Maybe they visit three times a year.

We're increasing both the number of people traveling and how frequently they travel, rather than simply taking passengers away from larger airports.

AviationPros: What are the biggest obstacles to making that vision a reality?

Ricks: First, there must be genuine underlying demand. Without it, developing commercial service isn't a good use of anyone's resources.

Where demand exists, the biggest obstacles are expertise and capital.

Even smaller airport developments are complex undertakings. For the communities involved, these can be generational projects.

Avports brings operating expertise, airline knowledge, private capital, community partnerships and development capabilities together.

Another obstacle is a misalignment of vision.

If a community wants commercial air service but also wants to create an architectural landmark that will stand for centuries, we're probably not the right partner.

There's a place for civic grandeur, but airports operate within a commercial ecosystem that must make financial sense. The airline business operates on thin margins.

If a community's priority is abundant, affordable air service, we're likely to be a good fit. When there's that alignment, we can accomplish something special together.