agenda greenville-spartanburg airport commission regular … · 2017-06-05 · agenda ....

____________________________________________________________

AGENDA

Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission Regular Meeting Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport Conference Room C at Administrative Offices

Monday, November 24, 2014 9:00 a.m.

* NOTE TO ALL PUBLIC ATTENDEES: The public may speak on any item on the agenda. There are request cards located outside the public seating area. These cards must be completed and presented to the Recording Secretary prior to the item being heard. Your comments will be addressed prior to the Airport Commission’s discussion and you will have 5 minutes to address the Airport Commission. Thank you for your attention.

I. CALL TO ORDER:

II. CONSENT AGENDA:

A. Approval of the Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission September 22, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes (document).

B. Acceptance of Audit Committee October 31, 2014 Meeting Minutes (document).

III. PRESENTATIONS:

A. Recognitions/Awards.

IV. OLD BUSINESS:

A. Approval to Purchase GSP Digital Signage.

GREENVILLE-SPARTANBURG AIRPORT COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, November 24, 2014

V. NEW BUSINESS:

A. Acceptance of the Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport Financial Audit and schedules of Expenditures for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2014 (document).

B. Audit Committee Recommendation Regarding Extension of Auditor Contract (document).

C. Landscape Master Plan (document). D. Adoption of the Greenville-Spartanburg Airport District Strategic Business

Plan (document).

VI. PRESIDENT/CEO REPORT:

A. Aviation Industry Update. B. Terminal Art Program Update. C. Air Service Meeting Update.

VII. INFORMATION SECTION:

(Staff presentations will not be made on these items. Staff will be available to address any questions the Commission may have). A. September 2014 – Traffic Reports (document). B. September 2014 – Monthly Financial Report (documents). C. November 2014 – Development/Project Status Report (document). D. November 2014 – Communications Status Report (document). E. November 2014 – Properties and Development Report (document). F. November 2014 - OSHA Reportable Injury Report (document). G. Customer Service Satisfaction Survey – 3rd Quarter (document). H. Industry Presentation(s)/Article(s) of Interest (documents). I. Potential Items for the Next Regular Scheduled Commission Meeting:

• Airport Environs Presentation

VIII. COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS: IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION:

The Airport Commission may hold an Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on various matters and to discuss future contractual items.

GREENVILLE-SPARTANBURG AIRPORT COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, November 24, 2014 Page 2

X. ADJOURNMENT:

This agenda of the Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission is provided as a matter of convenience to the public. It is not the official agenda. Although every effort is made to provide complete and accurate information to this agenda, the Airport Commission does not warrant or guarantee its accuracy or completeness for any purpose. The agenda is subject to change before or at the Airport Commission Meeting.

GREENVILLE-SPARTANBURG AIRPORT

COMMISSION MINUTES

SEPTEMBER 22, 2014

The Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission met on September 22, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in the Greenville-Spartanburg Airport District Office Conference Room C located at 2000 GSP Drive, Suite 1, Greer, SC 29651.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Minor Shaw, Hank Ramella, Bill Barnet, and Doug Smith

MEMBERS ABSENT: Valerie Miller and Leland Burch

STAFF AND LEGAL COUNSEL PRESENT: Dave Edwards-President/CEO, Kevin Howell-Vice President/COO, Jack Murrin-Vice President Administration and Finance/CFO, Scott Carr-Director of Properties and Development, Larry Estridge-WCSR, Betty O. Temple-WCSR, Alan Sistare-GSP Fire Dept., Michael Seigler-GSP Fire Dept., and Wanda Jones-Executive Assistant.

GUESTS PRESENT: Don Warren-Skanska-Moss, Steve Van Beek-ICF Int’l, Mark Waller-Infrastructure Consulting & Engineering, and Dennis Wiehl- Mead & Hunt.

CALL TO ORDER: Chair Minor Shaw called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.

Mr. Larry Estridge introduced Mrs. Betty O. Temple; Mrs. Temple will succeed Mr. Estridge in the role of Legal Counsel after the transition period.

CONSENT AGENDA:

A motion was made, seconded, and unanimous vote received to approve the regular meeting minutes from the July 14, 2014 Commission Meeting, the Strategic Business Plan Workshop of July 22, 2014 and September 3, 2014.

A motion was made, seconded, and unanimous vote received to approve the Meeting/Dates/Time for Calendar 2015. The meeting dates are:

January 15, 2015, March 18, 2015, May 18, 2015, July 13, 2015, September 14, 2015, November 9, 2015.

PRESENTATIONS:

A. Fire/Fire Safety Disaster Planning.

Captain Seigler discussed the responsibility of the GSP Fire Department which is Safety for everyone at GSP and maintain a high level of readiness at all times. The levels of service include: ARFF (14 CFR FAR 139), Fire/Rescue (ISO Class 2)

Medical (licensed DHEC), Hazardous Material Mitigation, and Confined Space Rescue. Services are provided on and off airport property. The Fire Department has answered the following calls from 2012 to date:

CALLS 2012 2013 2014 As of 9/21/2014

ALERTS 22 29 16 FIRES/ALARMS 29 48 39 MEDICAL 159 195 158 MISC 63 57 37 TOTAL 272 329 248 MUTAL AID 24 33 25

Captain Seigler discussed other services the Fire Department is responsible for: 500 +/- Monthly Fire Extinguisher Inspections, Quarterly Fire & Safety Inspections, Quarterly Sprinkler Inspections, Monthly Elevator Inspections, 17 Monthly Spill Kit Inspections, Quarterly Fuel Truck and Fuel Farm Inspections, Refueling Inspections, approve hot work permits and issue confined space entry permits. The Fire Department participates in a Full Scale Preparedness drill every three (3) years and Table Tops Preparedness every year between the full scale drills. Captain Seigler asked for questions. Mr. Barnet asked how many people would

need to be added to get a better ISO rating. Fire Chief Sistare stated staff would need to be doubled. Mr. Barnet asked if a better ISO rating would bring lower insurance rates. Chief Sistare stated yes. The Commission thanked the entire Fire Department for a great job.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. GSP Digital Billboard Signage Proposal.

Mr. Edwards stated the GSP Digital Billboard Signage Proposal is in response to how the District can better reach the community. The digital billboard would give the District an opportunity to send messaging 24/7. Mr. Edwards stated some of the benefits of a digital billboard include: no production costs, flexibility, dynamic content, multiple messages, and medium value. Mr. Ramella asked if the District will be selling advertising in addition to the Airport District messaging. Mr. Edwards stated Staff has been in contact with Spartanburg County and the District can sell advertising to anyone who is on airport property. Mr. Edwards clarified that no value amount has been set for selling advertising.

Mr. Edwards stated that the electrical cost for the digital billboard will be $453.00 a month based on the Duke Power Assessment of .095 per kWh. Mr. Barnet asked if solar power is an option. Mr. Edwards stated staff will need to look into that item to see if it would be an option.

Three (3) proposals were received for the Digital Billboard. Fairway, Hilton, and St. Clair. An evaluation criteria/score sheet was used to rank the companies who submitted proposals. St. Clair Signs was chosen for a total cost of $420,984.00. Mr. Edwards stated the billboard is unique and will give the ability to drive home some targeted messaging to those in our primary catchment area. Chair Shaw asked if the placement of the digital billboard will interfere with any future plans on the property. Mr. Edwards stated no.

After a brief discussion, the Commission decided to table the Digital Billboard Signage Proposal until the November Commission Meeting.

PRESIDENT/CEO REPORT:

Mr. Edwards stated that airlines continue to be extremely profitable. On the airport-side, the focus continues to be on the FAA re-authorization bill and what will happen in 2015. It is a major Bill and we continue to push for Congress to deal with the bill timely.

Mr. Edwards reported to date that CEO meetings have been held with: Milliken, Fluor, Hubbell Lighting, AFL, and Michelin. The meetings have been very positive and all companies have committed to helping with information that will better target their needs going forward. One particular item discussed with Fluor is putting in place a Corporate Ambassador Partnership Program. This program would allow Fluor to badge some of their employees to allow them access to the gate area. Once at the gate, this program would allow Fluor employees to greet their VIP’s and bring them through the facility. Staff has sent the proposed program to Fluor and is waiting on their review. This program can be rolled out to other companies.

Mr. Edwards stated Mr. Stanis Smith with Stantec has been engaged for art consultant services and the decision needs to be made who will be part of the art task force going forward.

Mr. Edwards stated he and Mr. Edward Shelswell-White are continuing to move forward on the development of the Community Outreach Program. Focus Group meetings for both business and leisure customers will be set up as well as a survey. The focus groups and the survey should give staff some great information that can be used to evaluate and target how to reach individuals and businesses in the community.

Mr. Edwards stated that he attended the Upstate Chamber Coalition Event in Washington, DC. Mr. Edwards was able to spend some time with Senator Scott outlying some options for reauthorization.

INFORMATION SECTION:

Mr. Edwards stated traffic continues to be positive. The economy parking lot has been filling up on a regular basis with Tuesday and Wednesday being the peak days. Occasionally the garages are reaching capacity. Staff is keeping an eye on the parking situation.

ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business, a motion was made, seconded, and adopted to go into Executive Session to discuss contractual matters at 10:30 a.m. At approximately 12:00 p.m. public session resumed, with no further business. The meeting was adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

GREENVILLE-SPARTANBURG AIRPORT COMMISSION

AUDIT COMMITTEE MINUTES

OCTOBER 31, 2014

On October 31, 2014, the Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission’s Audit Committee met at 2:00 p.m. in the Greenville-Spartanburg Airport District Office Conference Room C located at 2000 GSP Drive, Suite 1, Greer, SC 29651.

Committee Members Present: Bill Barnet (Chair), Minor Shaw, Valerie Miller

Staff Present: David Edwards-President/CEO, Jack Murrin-Vice President Administration and Finance/CFO, Wanda Jones-Executive Assistant

External Audit Representation: Alan Robinson-Partner, Cherry Bekaert

Mr. Barnet opened the meeting and turned the meeting over to Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Robinson presented the June 30, 2014 Audited Financial Statements. The external auditors offered a clean and an unqualified audit opinion with no exceptions or surprises. The audit was on-time and on schedule. Mr. Robinson praised the internal team for its cooperation and professional management of the District books.

Mr. Barnet asked Mr. Robinson if he was comfortable with the Wingspan Construction Project. Mr. Robinson stated in the affirmative, and as long as the construction is going on Cherry Bekaert will focus their attention on this issue. The audit of the project went very well this year.

Mr. Barnet asked Mr. Robinson to comment on the GASB rules. Mr. Robinson stated that GASB 67 & 68 deals with the South Carolina Retirement System non-cash pension liabilities which went into effect on July 1, 2014. The SC Retirement System has a multi-billion dollar unfunded liability. The current estimated District’s liability is $12.5 million. This rule will force entities to look at changing contribution rates, and the curtailment of benefits for new employees. Staff is monitoring these pronouncements carefully.

Mr. Barnet asked if vendor testing went well. Mr. Robinson summarized that Federal Express, Avis/Budget, and ABM Parking were tested this year. Cherry Bekaert looked at the lease agreements of the vendors who were tested and made sure the earnings, recording and charging of revenue were being done in line with lease agreements. In 2015, the vendor testing will include: Allegiant Air, Stevens Aviation, and MSE.

Mr. Murrin noted the contract with Cherry Bekaert will expire in 2015. A discussion followed on the committee’s thoughts on recommendations to the full Commission for confirmation of the relationship.

Mr. Barnet asked if Mr. Robinson is required to rotate from his role as lead auditor. Mr. Robinson stated he is not required to change. The Audit Committee will discuss the contract and make a recommendation.

The committee then met separately with Mr. Robinson, Mr. Murrin, and Mr. Edwards in private sessions.

After a brief discussion, the Audit Committee adjourned the meeting at 2:45 p.m.

MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Airport Commission From: Rosylin Weston, V.P. Communications

DATE: November 24, 2014 ITEM DESCRIPTION – Old Business Item A

Approval to Purchase GSP Digital Signage

BACKGROUND

The GSP Airport District Communications Department continues to look for new ways to reach Upstate consumers about the value of and the reasons to fly out of GSP International Airport. In addition, the Airport Commission has suggested that staff take a more aggressive approach to marketing GSP to the region.

A digital sign positioned strategically on airport property for the exclusive delivery of airport messaging will: • Provide the impact of traditional outdoor messaging with the flexibility of internet

advertising. Become an iconic symbol similar to the Gaffney Peach • Provide the opportunity to update messages weekly, daily or even hourly • Provide the opportunity to display multiple messages • Provide the opportunity to deliver real-time information • Deliver GSP messages in a big, bold unavoidable format, 24 hours per day, 7

days a week reminding consumers that GSP is “their hometown airport” ISSUE

At their previous meeting, the Airport Commission deferred action on this item and asked Staff to gather additional information about the effectiveness of digital signage advertising and fine-tune the overall look of the sign. In the meantime, Commission members would take the time to look at the general location for the proposed sign to better understand the visibility of the sign from Interstate 85. Attached is a summary from Erwin Penland on the effectiveness of digital signage and proposed new signage concepts. Staff will have a scaled-down version of the digital sign and sample content in the parking lot on the day of the meeting for the

2000 GSP Drive, Suite 1 ● Greer, SC 29651 ● Greenville: 864.877.7426 ● Spartanburg: 864.439.4476 ● Fax: 864.848.6225 www.gspairport.com

Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission Old Business Item A Approval to Purchase Digital Sign Page 2

Commission members to evaluate. ALTERNATIVES The GSP Airport District could decide to rent one (1) double-sided digital billboard annually for $546,000.00. This fee is subject to market rate changes. FISCAL IMPACT Based on quotes received from three (3) vendors, the estimated capital cost to purchase and install one double-sided digital billboard on airport property is $420,983.77.

RECOMMENDED ACTION

It is respectfully requested that the Airport Commission resolve to approve the Airport District staff move forward with the negotiation and purchase of one double-sided digital billboard in an amount not-to-exceed $450,000 to be located on airport property adjacent to Interstate 85. Attachments

http://www.gspairport.com/

Outdoor Advertising for GSP International Airport and the Average Air Traveler Outdoor advertising on I-85 would be valuable for GSP International Airport because:

1. Air travelers see more outdoor than the average person 2. Many potential GSP customers who use CLT travel on i-85 to get there

We can determine if the average air traveler is exposed to outdoor advertising by looking at how many “Miles Traveled”, with respect to being in the car, they have indicated. The results are combined into quintiles to identify the heaviest “miles traveled” audience down to the lightest “miles traveled” audience.

Through the same study, we see that 60% of air travelers drive on I-85 and are 38% more likely than the average adult to drive on I-85. Given the proximity of the GSP International Airport to I-85, and the likelihood of air travelers to be on this highway, there is an obvious advantage for the GSP International Airport to have space for messages geared towards the air traveler target.

133

108 100 81 77

020406080

100120140

Miles traveled1st Quintile(heaviest)

Miles traveled2nd Quintile

(heavy)

Miles traveled3rd Quintile(medium)

Miles traveled4th Quintile

(light)

Miles traveled5th Quintile

(lightest)

Avg Air Traveler in the GSAA Market

Any domestic air round trip in 12 mos

25% 31%

62%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Used Asheville aspoint of

departure past12 months

Used CLT aspoint of


Used GSP aspoint of


Used Atlanta aspoint of


Avg Air Traveler in the GSAA Market

Any domestic air round trip in 12 mos

The 100 index indicates the average adult response. Indices above 100 indicate a likelihood of our target to exhibit the behavior when compared to the average adult. In this case, the Air Traveler is 33% more likely than the average adult to fall into the heaviest quintile for miles traveled.

While 62% of air travelers have flown out of GSP Intl Airport, 31% of air travelers have flown out of Charlotte, traveling up I-85.

2000 GSP Drive, Suite 1 ● Greer, SC 29651 ● Greenville: 864.877.7426 ● Spartanburg: 864.439.4476 ● Fax: 864.848.6225

www.gspairport.com

_____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Airport Commission FROM: Jack G. Murrin, VP of Administration & Finance/CFO DATE: November 24, 2014 _____________________________________________________________ ITEM DESCRIPTION – New Business Item A Acceptance of Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport Financial Audit and Schedules of Expenditures for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2014 and 2013. BACKGROUND Article 7 “Certain Covenants of the District”, Section 716, of the 1988 GSP Master Bond Resolution mandates that the District shall annually , within 120 days after the close of each Fiscal Year, cause an audit to be made of its books and accounts by an independent and recognized certified public accounting firm. Also, as a recipient of FAA grant funds, the requirement for an audit is further established by incorporation of grant assurance #13 and by reference to Federal Regulation 49 CFR Part 18. Sponsors that expend $500,000 or more in an year in Federal funds must have a single or program-specific audit conducted for that year in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984 (as amended) and OMB Circular A-133 "Audits of States, Local Governments and Nonprofit Organization". The $500,000 threshold represents all Federal funding sources. ISSUES The Audit Committee met on October 31, 2014 and was presented with the audit findings. The audit was clean and unqualified. Representatives of the Cherry, Bekaert & Holland audit firm will present the Audit findings and answer questions the Airport Commission may have.


www.gspairport.com

Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission New Business Item A Acceptance of Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport Financial Audit and Schedules of Expenditures for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 Page 2

ALTERNATIVES None recommended. FISCAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDED ACTION It is respectfully requested that the Airport Commission accept the audit report as presented.

GREENVILLE‐SPARTANBURG AIRPORT DISTRICT

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS

As of and for the Years Ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 And Report of Independent Auditor

GREENVILLE‐SPARTANBURG AIRPORT DISTRICT TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR ............................................................................................. 1-2 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 3-12 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Statements of Net Position ....................................................................................................................... 13-14 Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position .............................................................. 15 Statements of Cash Flows ............................................................................................................................. 16 Notes to Financial Statements .................................................................................................................. 17-27

FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards ............................................................................................................ 28-29 Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program; Report on Internal Control over Compliance; and Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by OMB Circular A-133 .......................................................................................................... 30-31 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ................................................................................................ 32 Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ........................................................................... 33 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs ............................................................................................ 34-35 Schedule of Status of Prior Year Findings and Questioned Costs ................................................................ 36

Report of Independent Auditor

To the Commissioners of Greenville-Spartanburg Airport District Greer, South Carolina Report on the Financial Statements We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Greenville-Spartanburg Airport District (the “Airport”), a political subdivision of the State of South Carolina, as of June 30, 2014 and 2013, and the related statements of revenues, expenses, and changes in net position and cash flows for the years then ended, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the Airport’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.

Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Auditor’s Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.

Opinion In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the Airport, as of June 30, 2014 and 2013, and the results of its operations and its cash flows thereof for the years then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

2

Other Matters Required Supplementary Information Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s discussion and analysis on pages 3 through 12 be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.

Other Information Our audits were conducted for the purpose of forming our opinion on the financial statements as a whole. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. The schedule of expenditures of federal awards is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the information is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated October 20, 2014 on our consideration of the Airport’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the Airport’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance. Greenville, South Carolina October 20, 2014

GREENVILLE‐SPARTANBURG AIRPORT DISTRICT MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS JUNE 30, 2014 AND 2013

3

The following Management Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) of Greenville-Spartanburg Airport District (“GSP,” “District” or the “Airport”) activities and financial performance for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, is presented in accordance with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements — Management’s Discussion and Analysis — For State and Local Governments. The intent of the MD&A is to provide the reader with an introduction and overview to the financial statement package.

Following this MD&A are the basic financial statements of the Airport together with the notes thereto, which are essential to a full understanding of the data contained in the financial statements. In addition to the basic financial statements and accompanying notes, this section also presents certain required supplementary information regarding debt service requirements to maturity.

Overview of Annual Financial Report

Management’s Discussion and Analysis serves as an introduction to the basic financial statements. The MD&A represents management’s examination and analysis of the Airport’s financial condition and performance. Summary financial statement data, key financial and operational indicators used in the Airport’s budgeting and other management tools were used for this analysis.

The Airport’s financial statements include a Statement of Net Position; a Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position; a Statement of Cash Flows; and Notes to Financial Statements. The Statement of Net Position presents the financial position of the Airport on a full accrual historical cost basis and provides information about the nature and amount of resources and obligations at the end of a year.

The Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position present the results of the business activities over the course of the fiscal year and information as to how the net position changed during the year. All changes in net position are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows. This statement also provides certain information about the Airport’s recovery of its costs. The Airport’s rates and charges are based on a cost recovery methodology provided in its airline use agreements. The primary objective of the rates and charges model is to determine the costs not covered by non-airline sources and to annually compute landing fees and terminal rents which will provide sufficient funding to reimburse the Airport.

The Statement of Cash Flows presents changes in cash and cash equivalents, resulting from operational, financing, and investing activities. This statement presents cash receipts and cash disbursement information, without consideration of the earnings event, when obligations arise, or depreciation of capital assets.

The Notes to Financial Statements provide disclosures and other information that is essential to a full understanding of material data provided in the statements. The notes present information about the Airport’s accounting policies, significant account balances, activities, material risks, obligations, commitments, contingencies and subsequent events, if any.

The financial statements were prepared by the Airport’s staff from the detailed books and records of the Airport.


4

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

STATEMENTS OF NET POSITION, JUNE 30, 2014 AND 2013 June 30 2014 2013 Change % Assets: Cash and investments $ 61,034,325 $ 79,192,211 $ (18,157,886) (22.93) Bond funds 377,355 366,221 11,134 3.04 Receivables 3,050,010 5,740,258 (2,690,248) (46.87) Capital assets – net 165,081,479 136,687,991 28,393,488 20.77 Other 511,914 307,698 204,216 66.37 Total assets $ 230,055,083 $ 222,294,379 $ 7,760,704 3.49 Liabilities: Current liabilities $ 5,192,067 $ 5,875,424 $ (683,357) (11.63) Long-term liabilities 5,411,629 5,864,508 (452,879) (7.72) Total liabilities 10,603,696 11,739,932 (1,136,236) (9.68) Net position: Net investment in capital assets 162,020,253 133,377,516 28,642,737 21.47 Restricted 1,930,726 1,737,152 193,574 11.14 Unrestricted 55,500,408 75,439,779 (19,939,371) (26.43) Total net position $ 219,451,387 $ 210,554,447 $ 8,896,940 4.23

As can be seen from the above, the Airport has a very strong Statement of Net Position. Liquidity continues to be very strong. Total net position is $219,451,387 of which $55,500,408 is unrestricted.

Total assets at June 30, 2014 were $230,055,083, which included $15,100,984 in cash and receivables, $46,516,797 million in investments, $377,355 in investments held by US Bank (GSP’s Revenue Bond Trustee), and $165,081,479 in capital assets. Total liabilities were $10,603,696, $2,034,388 of which related to GSP’s 2001 rental car facility bond issue outstanding at year end. The difference between the $230,055,083 in assets and the $10,603,696 in liabilities is categorized as Net Position ($219,451,387) and is composed of $162,020,253 of net investment in capital assets, $1,930,726 in restricted assets to be used for capital projects, and $55,500,408 in unrestricted assets.


5


STATEMENTS OF NET POSITION, JUNE 30, 2013 AND 2012 June 30 2013 2012 Change % Assets: Cash and investments $ 79,192,211 $ 87,843,801 $ (8,651,590) (9.85) Bond funds 366,221 354,406 11,815 3.33 Receivables 5,740,258 3,306,167 2,434,091 73.62 Capital assets – net 136,687,991 121,784,897 14,903,094 12.24 Other 307,698 492,219 (184,521) (37.49) Total assets $ 222,294,379 $ 213,781,490 $ 8,512,889 3.98 Liabilities: Current liabilities $ 5,875,424 $ 3,856,559 $ 2,018,865 52.35 Long-term liabilities 5,864,508 6,289,256 (424,748) (6.75) Total liabilities 11,739,932 10,145,815 1,594,117 15.71 Net position: Net investment in capital assets 133,377,516 115,872,574 17,504,942 15.11 Restricted 1,737,152 863,095 874,057 101.27 Unrestricted 75,439,779 86,900,006 (11,406,227) (13.19) Total net position $ 210,554,447 $ 203,635,675 $ 6,918,772 3.40

As can be seen from the above, the Airport has a very strong Statement of Net Position. Liquidity continues to be very strong. Total net position is $210,554,447 of which $75,439,779 is unrestricted.

Total assets at June 30, 2013 were approximately $222,294,379, which included $8,898,638 in cash and receivables, $73,382,918 in investments, $366,221 in investments held by US Bank (GSP’s Revenue Bond Trustee), and $136,687,991 in capital assets. Total liabilities were $11,739,932, $2,240,614 of which related to GSP’s 2001 rental car facility bond issue outstanding at year end. The difference between the $222,294,379 in assets and the $11,739,932 in liabilities is categorized as Net Position ($210,554,447) and is composed of $133,377,516 of net investment in capital assets, $1,737,152 in restricted assets to be used for capital projects, and $75,439,779 unrestricted assets.


6


STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION, JUNE 30, 2014 AND 2013

June 30 2014 2013 Change % Operating revenues: Landing and other airside fees $ 2,994,349 $ 2,241,484 $ 752,865 33.59 Space and ground rental fees 8,011,832 6,526,942 1,484,890 22.75 Concessions revenue 12,597,222 12,383,451 213,771 1.73 Expense reimbursements 1,024,100 668,066 356,034 53.29 Other revenue 1,057,549 1,117,666 (60,117) (5.38) Total operating revenues 25,685,052 22,937,609 2,747,443 11.98 Operating expenses: Direct operating expenses 13,079,341 12,288,756 790,585 6.43 Loss on disposal of assets 2,027,434 59,975 1,967,459 3,280.47 Depreciation 10,050,973 9,657,926 393,047 4.07 Total operating expenses 25,157,748 22,006,657 3,151,091 14.32 Operating income 527,304 930,952 (403,648) (43.36) Non-operating income (expense) 178,663 1,357,178 (1,178,515) (86.84) Income before capital contributions

705,967

2,288,130

(1,582,163)

(69.15)

Capital contributions 8,190,973 4,630,642 3,560,331 76.89 Increase in net position $ 8,896,940 $ 6,918,772 $ 1,978,168 28.59

Total operating revenues were $25,685,052 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, up 11.98% from $22,937,609 as compared to the prior year. This increase was the result of higher space and ground rentals from the rental car companies, a full year of space rentals from Southwest Airlines and an increase in landing rates, a byproduct of increased airfield costs.

Total direct operating expenses were $13,079,341 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, up 6.43% from $12,288,756 as compared to the prior year. This increase was largely due to employee benefits, business incentives and advertising expenses.

The loss on disposal of assets was $2,027,434 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, up 3,280.47% from $59,975 as compared to the prior year. This increase represented a major terminal asset disposal in fiscal year ended June 30, 2014.

Total non-operating income was $178,663 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, down 86.84% from $1,357,178 as compared to the prior year. This is due to a decrease in excess Contract Facility Charge (“CFC”) revenues from the rental car companies, as a result of covering the space and ground rent as mentioned above.


7

Depreciation expense was $10,050,973 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, as compared to $9,657,926 in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

The debt service coverage ratio was 3,355%, which exceeded the 125% required by the debt covenants of GSP’s various bond issues.

The blended result of increased operating revenues and total operating expenses, along with a decrease in non-operating income, as discussed above, resulted in GSP’s net income before capital contribution of $705,967 and $2,288,130 for fiscal year ended June 30, 2014 and fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, respectively.


8


STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION, JUNE 30, 2013 AND 2012

June 30 2013 2012 Change % Operating revenues: Landing and other airside fees $ 2,241,484 $ 2,422,773 $ (181,289) (7.48) Space and ground rental fees 6,526,942 5,931,549 595,393 10.04 Concessions revenue 12,383,451 12,200,620 182,831 1.50 Expense reimbursements 668,066 530,631 137,435 25.90 Other revenue 1,117,666 1,182,843 (65,177) (5.51) Total operating revenues 22,937,609 22,268,416 669,193 3.01 Operating expenses: Direct operating expenses 12,288,756 11,759,238 529,518 4.50 Loss on disposal of assets 59,975 181,644 (121,669) (66.98) Depreciation 9,657,926 9,240,394 417,532 4.52 Total operating expenses 22,006,657 21,181,276 825,381 3.90 Operating income 930,952 1,087,140 (156,188) (14.37) Non-operating income (expense) 1,357,178 1,262,000 95,178 7.54 Income before capital contributions 2,288,130 2,349,140 (61,010) (2.60) Capital contributions 4,630,642 2,707,491 1,923,151 71.03 Increase in net position $ 6,918,772 $ 5,056,631 $ 1,862,141 36.83

Total operating revenues were $22,937,609 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, up 3.01% from $22,268,416 as compared to the prior year. This increase was primarily the result of increased terminal space rent, the byproduct of increased indirect administrative costs spread.

Total direct operating expenses were $12,288,756 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, up 4.5% from $11,759,238 as compared to the prior year. This increase was largely due to new employee benefits.

Depreciation expense was $9,657,926 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, as compared to $9,240,394 in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012.

The debt service coverage ratio was 2,941%, which exceeded the 125% required by the debt covenants of GSP’s various bond issues.

The blended result of increased operating revenues, depreciation expense and operating expenses, as discussed above, resulted in GSP’s net income before capital contribution of $2,288,130 and $2,349,140 for fiscal year ended June 30, 2013 and fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, respectively.


9

Description of significant capital and long‐term debt expenditures

The Airport District is currently in the midst of a major terminal renovation with a project budget of about $123 million. The expected completion date is tentatively scheduled at the end of the 2nd quarter, 2016. Significant capital expenditures are underway and are reflected in increased Construction In Progress from $22.0 million at June 30, 2013 to $63.0 million at June 30, 2014.

The Airport District has incurred no additional long-term debt expenditures in either the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014 or June 30, 2013. The only expenditures related to long-term debt are those of normal debt service.

Changes in Credit Ratings and Debt Limitations

The Airport District has an A2 credit rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. There were no changes in our credit ratings or associated debt limitations in either the fiscal years ended June 30, 2014 or June 30, 2013.

All foreseeable capital projects within a ten year horizon are projected to be funded internally with Airport District reserve funds and/or with FAA grant funds.

Looking Ahead …

Aviation Industry Overview The airline industry is particularly susceptible and sensitive to many variables we find in our world today:

Terrorist events, like 9/11 Domestic and global economic conditions Pandemics and other health concerns Aircraft accidents Fleet & maintenance issues / aircraft orders and delays Customer service issues / failures & resultant negative press Extreme volatility of fuel prices Volcanic activity Merger, acquisitions, bankruptcies of airlines

Any one of these can impact airline traffic dramatically, as recent experience has abundantly proven. Yet, when you combine these factors in an ever-changing world, you can expect very volatile results. Airlines have attempted to minimize financial losses through these periods of extreme volatility by lowering operating costs, merging, canceling unprofitable routes, charging for baggage/food/etc., and grounding older, less fuel-efficient aircraft. Overall, it appears that many aviation industry prognosticators believe that:

Air fares are likely to stay high most of this decade Airline capacity will shrink causing planes to get even more crowded. Passenger miles flown on domestic flights are expected to decrease or remain static this year and grow

an average 2.0% per year over the next two decades Over the next two decades, U.S. airline travel is expected to nearly double Further airline consolidation in North America is likely Two of the larger risks facing airlines, especially those in Europe, include rising oil prices and Europe’s

sovereign debt crisis.


10

The Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA’s”) Aerospace Forecast for 2014-2034 contains the following “Forecast Highlights”:

“Since the beginning of the century, the commercial air carrier industry has suffered several major shocks that have led to reduced demand for air travel. These shocks include the terror attacks of September 11, skyrocketing prices for fuel, debt restructuring in Europe and the United States (U.S.), and a global recession. To manage this period of extreme volatility, air carriers have fine-tuned their business models with the aim of minimizing financial losses by lowering operating costs, eliminating unprofitable routes and grounding older, less fuel efficient aircraft. To increase operating revenues, carriers have initiated new services that customers are willing to purchase. Carriers have also started charging separately for services that were historically bundled in the price of a ticket. The capacity discipline exhibited by carriers and their focus on additional revenue streams bolstered the industry to profitability in 2013 for the fourth consecutive year. Going into the next decade, there is cautious optimism that the industry has been transformed from that of a boom-to-bust cycle to one of sustainable profits. As the economy recovers from the most serious economic downturn and slow recovery in recent history, aviation will continue to grow over the long run. Fundamentally, demand for aviation is driven by economic activity. As economic growth picks up, so will growth in aviation demand. The 2014 FAA forecast calls for U.S. carrier passenger growth over the next 20 years to average 2.2 percent per year, unchanged from last year’s forecast. After another year of slow growth in 2014, growth over the next five years will be higher than the long run rate as we assume U.S. economic growth accelerates. One of the many factors influencing the muted recovery is the uncertainty that surrounds the U.S. and the global economy. The global economy has been hit by a number of headwinds during the past few years, from recession in Europe to a “soft landing” in China and inconsistent performance in other emerging economies. This has not helped the pace of U.S. economic growth given the increasing importance of its trade with Europe and the rest of the world. Despite this and the ambiguity surrounding its own fiscal imbalances, the U.S. economy has managed to avoid a double dip recession and trudges along the path of slow recovery. System capacity in available seat miles (ASMs) – the overall yardstick for how busy aviation is both domestically and internationally – is projected to increase by 1.5 percent this year after posting a 0.8 percent increase in 2013; it will then grow at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent through 2034. In the domestic market, capacity growth in 2014 is forecast to be 1.0 percent and then grow at an average annual rate of 2.1 percent for the remainder of the forecast period. Domestic mainline carrier capacity is projected to increase 0.8 percent in 2014 after rising 1.3 percent in 2013. For the regional carriers, domestic capacity growth is projected to be 2.2 percent in 2014 after declining 2.8 percent in 2013. Commercial air carrier domestic revenue passenger miles (RPMs) are forecast to increase 0.9 percent in 2014, and then grow at an average of 2.2 percent per year through 2034; domestic enplanements in 2014 will increase 0.6 percent, and then grow at an average annual rate of 1.9 percent for the remainder of the forecast period. The average size of domestic aircraft is expected to increase by 1.3 seats in FY 2014 to 126.3 seats. Average seats per aircraft for mainline carriers are projected to increase by 1.2 seats as network carriers continue to reconfigure their domestic fleets. While demand for 70-90 seat aircraft continues to increase, we expect the number of 50 seat regional jets in service to fall, increasing the average regional aircraft size in 2014 by 1.4 seats to 57.5 seats per mile. Passenger trip length in all domestic markets will increase by 2.6 miles during the same period.


11

The long term outlook for general aviation is favorable even though the slow growth of the U.S. economy, contributed by uncertainties caused by debt ceiling crises, sequestration, government shutdown, and the European recession have affected the near term growth, particularly for the turbo jet sector. While it is slightly lower than predicted last year, the growth in business aviation demand over the long term continues, driven by a growing U.S. and world economy especially in the turbo jet, turboprop, and turbine rotorcraft markets. As the fleet grows, the number of general aviation hours flown is projected to increase an average of 1.4 percent a year through 2034. After sputtering in the early part of 2013, both the U.S. and global economies began to show improvement in the latter half of 2013 and appear poised to grow faster in 2014. Assuming energy prices remain relatively stable, U.S. carrier profitability should increase as an improving economy in its fifth year of recovery leads to strengthening demand, which coupled with continuing capacity discipline results in higher fares (and increased ancillary revenues). Over the long term, we see a competitive and profitable aviation industry characterized by increasing demand for air travel and airfares growing more slowly than inflation, reflecting over the long term a growing U.S. economy.”

Source: FAA Forecast Highlights 2014-2034 Moody’s Investor Service Airport Industry Outlook Moody’s has assigned a stable outlook for the short-term (12-18 months) U.S. Airport industry sector. This outlook is summarized in the following press release on December 10, 2013: Global Credit Research - 10 Dec 2013 “New York, December 10, 2013 -- The outlook for the US airport industry remains stable as airlines push up enplanements by adding to their total number of seats, says Moody's Investors Service in its "2014 Outlook -- US Airports." As the US economy posts slight gains, Moody's expects enplanements to continue growing. "The first quarter of next year will see the first increase in the number of flights in almost three years," says Earl Heffintrayer, a Moody's Assistant Vice President and Analyst. "The enplanement growth in 2014 will support the additional debt airports have taken on in the past two years." The growth in enplanements, along with de-leveraging at midsize and small airports, will blunt the impact of higher debt service at the large hub airports, says Moody's. Numerous major hubs have taken on more debt to fund terminal renovation projects. Rated airports, excluding combined airport and port enterprises, have issued about $4.7 billion of new debt since the end of fiscal 2012. However, approximately $4.4 billion of that was at large hub airports. Moody's calculates total debt service at rated airports will grow from $5.1 billion in fiscal 2013 to a peak of $5.7 billion in fiscal 2016. The large hub airports, however, continue to have greater growth in enplanements than smaller hub airports. Moody's changed its outlook for US airports to stable from negative in February 2013. The outlook expresses Moody's expectations for the fundamental business conditions in the industry over the next 12 to 18 months. Possible but unlikely events that would probably shift the outlook back to negative include reductions in airline services should oil prices increase above $135 a barrel, and reductions in government operational or grant funding, which would lead to increased debt funding.”


12

Source: Moody’s Investor Service 12-18 month outlook on US Airport Industry “Outlook for US airports remains stable in 2014”… December 10, 2013 Greenville‐Spartanburg International Airport (“GSP”) Outlook

Although profitability levels have been strong historically, management is focused on and remains committed to providing increased levels of air service for the surrounding population base. We continue to work diligently towards attracting greater levels of air service for the Upstate region and are ever mindful about posturing ourselves from a competitive standpoint in the face of increased competition from Charlotte and Atlanta. A major project initiative currently underway is a redesign of our aging terminal facilities. This project started in 2012 and has a completion date tentatively scheduled for the 2nd quarter, 2016. Management agrees with the FAA forecasts and continues to plan for long-term growth in accordance with local initiatives/demands, planning forecasts, and the approved 2003 Airport Master Plan update. Management’s assessment of our long-term forecast continues to be favorable largely due to our lack of debt, competitive airline rates & charges, aggressive air service development efforts, regional economic trends, healthy catchment area/size, and many other factors. Management is committed to providing our customers with the highest level of service possible in these challenging and exciting times and look forward to the future. .

2014 2013

ASSETSCurrent assets:

Cash 14,517,528$ 5,809,293$ Receivables 583,456 3,089,345 Inventories and prepaid insurance 511,914 307,698

Investments 46,516,797 73,382,918 Notes receivable - current portion 206,226 195,475

Total current assets 62,335,921 82,784,729

Restricted assets:Receivables 225,940 214,824 Investments - held by Trustee 377,355 366,221

Total restricted assets 603,295 581,045

Notes receivable - net of current portion 2,034,388 2,240,614

Capital assets - at cost:Land 38,909,689 40,534,358 Buildings and equipment 109,448,992 137,565,416 Runways 68,012,061 67,846,864 Construction-in-progress 62,776,367 22,048,412

Total capital assets 279,147,109 267,995,050

Less accumulated depreciation (114,065,630) (131,307,059)

Capital assets - net 165,081,479 136,687,991

Total Assets 230,055,083$ 222,294,379$


STATEMENTS OF NET POSITION

JUNE 30, 2014 AND 2013

The accompanying notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement. 13

2014 2013

LIABILITIESCurrent liabilities:

Payable from unrestricted assets:Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 4,608,487$ 5,313,729$ Unearned credits - current portion 206,226 195,475

Total payable from unrestricted assets 4,814,713 5,509,204

Payable from restricted assets:Accrued interest payable 97,354 106,220 Revenue bonds - current portion 280,000 260,000

Total payable from restricted assets 377,354 366,220

Total current liabilities 5,192,067 5,875,424

Unearned credits - net of current portion 2,034,388 2,240,614

Long-term employee benefits 802,241 768,894

Revenue bonds payable - net of current portion 2,575,000 2,855,000

Total liabilities 10,603,696 11,739,932

NET POSITIONNet investment in capital assets 162,020,253 133,377,516

Restricted:Held by Trustee 280,003 260,003 Contract facility charges 1,650,723 1,477,149

Total restricted 1,930,726 1,737,152

Unrestricted 55,500,408 75,439,779

Total net position 219,451,387$ 210,554,447$


STATEMENTS OF NET POSITION

JUNE 30, 2014 AND 2013


2014 2013Operating revenues:

Airside 2,994,349$ 2,241,484$ Space and ground rental 8,011,832 6,526,942 Concessions 12,597,222 12,383,451 Other 2,081,649 1,785,732

Total operating revenues 25,685,052 22,937,609

Operating expenses before loss on disposal of assets and depreciation:

Airfield 273,926 26,563 Terminal building 1,725,825 1,782,034 Administrative 4,120,058 3,816,812 Maintenance and operations 3,104,747 2,973,643 Fire and crash department 1,040,878 1,007,352 Security 1,160,393 1,021,931 Other direct expenses 1,653,514 1,660,421

Total operating expenses before loss on disposal of assets and depreciation 13,079,341 12,288,756

Operating income before loss on disposal of assets and depreciation 12,605,711 10,648,853

Net loss on disposal of assets 2,027,434 59,975

Depreciation 10,050,973 9,657,926

Operating income 527,304 930,952

Nonoperating revenues (expenses):Contract facility charges 318,044 1,514,162 Interest on accounts 55,981 111,342 Change in fair value of investments (651) 8,822 Interest and other financing costs - net (194,711) (277,148)

Nonoperating revenues - net 178,663 1,357,178

Income before capital contributions 705,967 2,288,130

Capital contributions 8,190,973 4,630,642

Increase in net position 8,896,940 6,918,772

Net position:Beginning of year 210,554,447 203,635,675

End of year 219,451,387$ 210,554,447$


STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION

YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2014 AND 2013


2014 2013

Cash flows from operating activities:Cash received from providing services 28,190,939$ 20,313,259$ Cash payments to suppliers for goods and services (5,142,380) (3,592,417) Cash payments to employees for services (6,767,704) (6,490,356)

Net cash provided by operating activities 16,280,855 10,230,486

Cash flows from capital and related financing activitiesAcquisition and construction of capital assets (42,517,261) (24,678,922) Net proceeds from sale of investments - held by Trustee (11,134) (11,815) Principal payments on bonds (260,000) (240,000) Interest payment on bonds (203,577) (221,282) Capital contributions 8,190,973 4,630,642 Contract facility charges 306,928 1,519,138

Net cash used in capital and related financing activities (34,494,071) (19,002,239)

Cash flows from investing activitiesNet purchase and maturity of investment securities 26,865,470 9,096,916 Investment income 55,981 111,341

Net cash provided by investing activities 26,921,451 9,208,257

Net increase in cash 8,708,235 436,504

Cash:Beginning of year 5,809,293 5,372,789

End of year 14,517,528$ 5,809,293$

Reconciliation of operating income to net cash provided by operating activities:

Operating income 527,304$ 930,952$ Adjustments to reconcile operating income to net cash provided by operating activities:

Depreciation 10,050,973 9,657,927 Net loss on disposal of capital assets 2,027,434 59,975 Change in assets and liabilities:

Trade and other receivables 2,505,889 (2,624,350) Inventories and prepaid insurance (204,216) 120,471 Trade accounts payable and accrued liabilities 1,340,124 2,054,784 Other long-term liabilities 33,347 30,727

Total adjustments 15,753,551 9,299,534

Net cash provided by operating activities 16,280,855$ 10,230,486$


STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2014 AND 2013


GREENVILLE‐SPARTANBURG AIRPORT DISTRICT NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2014 AND 2013

17

Note 1—Organization The Greenville-Spartanburg Airport District (the “Airport”) is a political subdivision of the State of South Carolina (the “State”). Commissioners of the Airport are recommended for appointment by a majority of the Greenville and Spartanburg County Delegations and appointed by the governor of the State. Note 2—Summary of significant accounting and reporting policies Basis of Presentation – Due to its organizational structure, the Airport is subject to the application of accounting pronouncements issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”). Use of Estimates – The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Cash – For purposes of the statements of cash flows, certain highly liquid investments (including restricted assets) not otherwise defined as an investment by State of South Carolina statute (see “Investments” below) with an original maturity of three months or less, are considered to be cash equivalents and are recorded at fair market value. The cash equivalents as of June 30, 2014 and 2013 were $30,093,046 and $52,122,348, respectively. Inventories – Inventories are stated at the lower of cost (first-in, first-out method) or market. Investments – The Airport’s investments, consisting of U.S. Treasury bills and notes at June 30, 2014 and 2013, are carried at fair value. All investments are carried in the Airport’s name and held by the dealer/safekeeping agent. Investment maturities are currently spread up to six months in such a fashion that a portion of the portfolio matures each month and, as such, are reported in current assets in the accompanying statements of net assets. Investments – Held by Trustee – Investments – Held by Trustee represent funds held by a trustee under bond indenture agreements as required by provisions of the Series 2001 Bonds. Such trusteed funds include debt service reserve, construction, and principal and interest accounts. These investments consist primarily of U.S. Treasury securities.


18

Note 2—Summary of significant accounting and reporting policies (continued) GASB Statement No. 65, Items Previously Reported as Assets and Liabilities, effective for periods beginning after December 15, 2012, identifies deferred outflows and inflows that are to be separated from assets and liabilities under GASB Statement No. 63 and provides for immediate recognition of certain costs and fees. This standard also provides financial reporting guidance related to the impact of the financial statement elements deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources, such as changes in the determination of the major fund calculations and limiting the use of the term deferred in financial statement presentations. This statement was implemented during the year beginning July 1, 2013, and had no material impact on the financial statements. Upcoming Pronouncements – The GASB has issued several statements which have not yet been implemented by the Airport. Those statements which may have a future impact on the Airport include: GASB Statement No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions – an amendment of GASB Statement No. 27, effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2014, replaces the requirements of Statement No. 27 and No. 50 as they relate to pensions that are provided through pension plans administered as trusts or equivalent arrangements that meet certain criteria. The standard requires government employers to recognize as a liability, for the first time, their long-term obligation for pension benefits. The employer liability is to be measured as the difference between the present value of projected benefit payments to be provided through the pension plan for past periods of service less the amount of the pension plan’s fiduciary net position, with obligations for employers with cost sharing plans based on their proportionate share of contributions to the pension plan. The standard also requires more immediate recognition of annual service cost, interest and changes in benefits for pension expense, specifies requirements for discount rates and actuarial methods and changes disclosure requirements.


19

Note 2—Summary of significant accounting and reporting policies (continued) Capital Assets – Capital assets are stated at historical cost. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the respective assets ranging from 3 to 25 years. The Airport’s threshold for capitalization is $10,000. Repair and maintenance costs are expensed when incurred. Changes in accumulated depreciation during 2014 and 2013 are as follows: Fixed Assets Acquired by Other Fixed Total Fixed FAA Grants Assets Assets Accumulated depreciation – July 1, 2012 $ 63,555,105 $ 59,342,192 $ 122,897,297 Fiscal year 2013 depreciation 5,522,496 4,135,430 9,657,926 Less – 2013 capital asset write-offs (119,265) (1,128,899) (1,248,164) Accumulated depreciation – June 30, 2013 68,958,336 62,348,723 131,307,059 Fiscal year 2014 depreciation 5,519,354 4,531,619 10,050,973 Less – 2014 capital asset write-offs (7,108,535) (20,183,867) (27,292,402) Accumulated depreciation – June 30, 2014 $ 67,369,155 $ 46,696,475 $ 114,065,630 Contract Facility Charge – Contract Facility Charges (“CFCs”) are levied by the Airport pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding signed with the rental car companies serving the Airport. This rate is adjusted from time to time as deemed necessary by airport management in order to cover the related annual expenses. The CFC rate was $4.00 per contract rental day as of June 30, 2013 and 2012. Up to the date of beneficial occupancy, April 1, 2003, the amounts received were recorded as non-operating revenues when earned and were to be used for construction of the rental car facility in addition to funding the debt service requirements of the associated Series 2001 Bonds. Subsequent to April 1, 2003, CFCs received are recorded as space and ground rental operating revenue in addition to non-operating revenue related to the continued funding of the related Series 2001 Bonds. The Airport is to receive the CFCs for the term of the related bonds (through fiscal 2020). The Memorandum of Understanding between the Airport and rental car companies serving the Airport also provides for the reimbursement of the construction costs which the Airport funded out of operations. The Airport is to be reimbursed over a 20-year period, payable monthly, including a 5.5% per annum finance charge. Upon receipt, the Airport records such reimbursement as operating revenue in the accompanying statements of revenues, expenses, and changes in net position. The Airport has recorded the total amount of reimbursement outstanding from the rental car companies at June 30, 2014 and 2013, as notes receivable and unearned credits totaling $2,240,614 and $2,436,089, respectively, in the accompanying statements of net position.


20

Note 2—Summary of significant accounting and reporting policies (continued) For the years ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, the Airport has recorded CFCs related to space and ground rental as operating revenue of $1,099,942 and $686,072, respectively, in addition to non-operating revenue consisting of the following: 2014 2013 Funding of Series 2001 Bonds $ 463,577 $ 472,443 Reimbursement of Airport-funded construction costs 329,460 329,460 CFC surplus receipts/(deficit) (474,793) 712,259 $ 318,244 $ 1,514,162

Additionally, as of June 30, 2014 and 2013, the Airport had received but not yet spent CFCs totaling $1,424,783 and $1,262,325, respectively, which are reported as restricted in the accompanying statements of net position until expended. Net Position – Net position is classified as net investment in capital assets, restricted and unrestricted. Restricted net position represents constraints on resources that are either externally imposed by creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments or imposed by law. Capital Contributions – Certain expenditures for airport capital improvements are significantly funded through the Airport Improvement Program (“AIP”) of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) or from various State allocations or grant programs. Capital funding provided under government grants is considered earned as the related allowable expenditures are incurred. Grants for capital asset acquisition and facility development and rehabilitation are reported in the accompanying statements of revenues, expenses, and changes in net assets, after non-operating revenues (expenses), as capital contributions. Operating Revenues and Expenses – All of the Airport’s activities relate to the operation of the airport except for the investment of residual cash and investments and financing-related activities. Accordingly, all of the Airport’s revenues and expenses, except for investment income and financing-related costs and charges, are classified as operating in the accompanying statements of revenues, expenses, and changes in net assets. Revenue Recognition – Airside and space and ground rental revenues consist of amounts received under Airline Operating Agreements with the major airlines serving the Airport, certain fixed fees for nonscheduled airlines and private users of the Airport, and certain fixed fees for other ancillary services provided. The Airline Operating Agreements stipulate that landing fees and space rental revenues will be based on maintenance and operations costs, as defined in the agreements. Additionally, the Series 2000 and 2001 Bonds contain a restrictive covenant which provides that the aggregate of airline fees and charges together with other revenues, including nonairline revenues, for each fiscal year should be sufficient to pay the operating expenses and to make all deposits and payments under bond ordinances. Airside and space and ground rental fees are recognized as revenue when the related services are provided and facilities utilized.


21

Note 2—Summary of significant accounting and reporting policies (continued) Concessions and other revenue consist primarily of rental car, parking, and other ancillary services revenue. Such revenue is generally based on a fixed percentage of tenant revenues subject to certain minimum monthly fees or a fixed fee schedule. Concessions and other revenue are recognized when earned. Other Direct Expenses – Other direct expenses consist primarily of the upkeep of the cargo, rental car, and parking lot facilities. Other direct expenses are recognized when incurred. Post-Employment Benefits – During the 2010 fiscal year, GSP implemented a new personnel policy in which it will pay for a portion of an eligible retiree’s health insurance premiums between ages 60 to 65 who also have at least 10 years of service with GSP. The liability related to this new benefit was not material; however, a liability related to this benefit is included in the long-term employee benefits in the statements of net position. Compensated Absences – Employees earn vacation leave at a rate of 80 to 160 hours per year dependent upon length of service. Unused vacation hours can be carried over from year to year up to a maximum of 480 hours and are payable upon termination, resignation, retirement, or death in accordance with the Airport’s personnel policy. The noncurrent portion of the accrued liability related to vacation hours is included in long-term employee benefits and the current portion in accrued liabilities in the statements of net position. Regular full-time employees accumulate sick leave at the rate of 96 hours per year and can accrue up to 720 hours. All employees who properly resign, are laid off, or otherwise separated from the Airport in good standing are entitled to be paid 33% of any unused sick balance not to exceed 240 hours. An accrual for sick leave has been made as of June 30, 2014 and has been categorized into a short-term and long-term portion. Sick leave can be taken for medical appointments, personal illness or illness of a member of the immediate family. Sick leave may be used in the determination of length of service for retirement benefit purposes. The noncurrent portion of the accrued liability related to sick leave is included in long-term employee benefits and the current portion in accrued liabilities in the statements of net position. Note 3—Cash and other financial instruments All the cash deposits of the Airport are in a single financial institution and are carried at cost plus interest which approximates fair value. The carrying amount of cash deposits is separately reported as cash in the accompanying statements of net position. These deposits are either insured or collateralized by using one of two methods. Under the Dedicated Method, all deposits are collateralized with securities held by the Airport. Under the Pooling Method, which is a collateral pool, all uninsured deposits are collateralized with securities held by the State Treasurer’s agent in the name of the State Treasurer. Airport cash accounts are part of a nightly multi-account sweep with a major financial institution’s automated investment system repurchase agreement. The balance of the overnight agreement was $13,202,373 and $7,578,947 as of June 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The overnight repurchase agreements are collateralized by the underlying U.S. government securities utilizing the Dedicated Method. Under the dedicated method, the bank custodian is required to pledge specific securities for collateralized balances in excess of the amounts covered by the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation. At June 30, 2014 and 2013, the carrying amount for Airport’s cash totaled $17,259,382 and $7,071,618, respectively. Of the Airport’s bank balance, $250,000 was covered by federal depository insurance, while the remainder of the Airport’s deposits were covered by collateral held under the Dedicated Method.


22

Note 4—Receivables Receivables are recorded at their gross value when earned and are reduced, if applicable, by the estimated portion that is expected to be uncollectible. The allowance for uncollectible amounts, when applicable, is based on collection history, aviation industry trends, and current information regarding the creditworthiness of the tenants and others doing business with the Airport. As of June 30, 2014 and 2013, no allowance for uncollectible amounts was recorded. Receivables (including restricted assets) consisted of the following as of June 30, 2014 and 2013: 2014 2013 Trade and contract facility charge $ 583,872 $ 609,981 FAA and other grants - 2,661,168 Interest and other 225,524 33,020 $ 809,396 $ 3,304,169

Note 5—Investments At June 30, 2014 and 2013, the Airport’s investment balances, recorded at fair value, were $46,516,797 and $73,382,918, respectively. Of these amounts, at June 30, 2014, $31,423,607 was invested in U.S. Treasury bills and notes and $15,093,190 in the Capital Bank CDARS (Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service) program. Of these amounts, at June 30, 2013, $46,259,420 was invested in U.S. Treasury bills and notes, $12,052,836 in the South Carolina Local Government Investment Pool program, and $15,070,662 in the Capital Bank CDARS program. All investments held at June 30, 2014 and 2013 have maturities of less than one year and have an AAA rating. In addition, investments with fair values of $377,355 and $366,221 as of June 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively, were held by a trustee. Types of Allowable Investments – in accordance with the South Carolina State Statutes and the Airport District’s approved investment policy, the following investments are permitted:

1. Checking accounts in U.S. federally insured banks and savings and loans not to exceed federally insured amounts;

2. Money market funds that invest in U.S. Government backed securities;

3. U.S. Treasury Obligations to include U.S. Treasury bills and notes, or any other obligation or security issued by or backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury;

4. Federal Agency Obligations including bonds, notes, debentures, or other obligations or securities

issued by, or backed by, full faith and credit of any U.S. Government agency or sponsored enterprise.

5. South Carolina Local Government Investment Pool (“SCLGIP”) limited to 25% of investment

portfolio.


23

Note 5—Investments (continued) Interest Rate Risk – As a means of limiting its exposure to fair value losses arising from rising interest rates, the Airport generally limits a portion of its investment portfolio to maturities of less than 12 months. Also, the Airport’s purchases of securities are laddered with staggered maturity dates. Credit Risk – The Airport has no written policy regarding credit risk. However, a conservative investment strategy is maintained. Currently, most investments are in T-bills, securities backed by U.S. Treasuries, or deposits which fall within the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) limits. Custodial Credit Risk – For an investment, the custodial credit risk is the risk that in the event of the failure of the counterparty, the Airport will not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. Since a large majority of the Airport’s investments are with the U.S. Treasury Department in the form of T-bills, or other securities backed by the U.S. Treasury, management views custodial credit risk as minimal, and consequently, has no written policy on this particular form of risk. Concentration of Credit Risk – The Airport places no limit on the amount that the Airport may invest in any one issuer, with the exception of the 25% limitation on the SCLGIP. All of the Airport’s investments are in, or backed by, U.S. Treasury bills and the SCLGIP. Note 6—Capital assets A summary of changes in capital assets during fiscal 2014 and 2013 is as follows: Transfers/ June 30, 2013 Additions Disposals June 30, 2014 Capital assets not being depreciated:

Land $ 40,534,358 $ 281,126 $ (1,905,795) $ 38,909,689 Construction-in-process 22,048,412 40,987,236 (259,281) 62,776,367 Total capital assets not being depreciated 62,582,770 41,268,362 (2,165,076) 101,686,056 Capital assets being depreciated: Buildings and equipment 137,565,416 1,083,399 (29,199,823) 109,448,992 Runways 67,846,864 118,062 47,135 68,012,061 Total capital assets being depreciated 205,412,280 1,201,461 (29,152,688) 177,461,053 Total accumulated depreciation (131,307,059) (10,050,972) 27,292,401 (114,065,630) Net capital assets $ 136,687,991 $32,418,851 $ (4,025,363) $ 165,081,479


24

Note 6—Capital assets (continued) Transfers/ June 30, 2012 Additions Disposals June 30, 2013 Capital assets not being depreciated:

Land $ 40,113,111 $ 421,247 $ - $ 40,534,358 Construction-in-process 7,237,846 17,189,207 (2,378,641) 22,048,412 Total capital assets not being depreciated 47,350,957 17,610,454 (2,378,641) 62,582,770 Capital assets being depreciated: Buildings and equipment 127,210,069 7,130,506 3,224,841 137,565,416 Runways 70,121,168 - (2,274,304) 67,846,864 Total capital assets being depreciated 197,331,237 7,130,506 950,537 205,412,280 Total accumulated depreciation (122,897,297) (9,657,926) 1,248,164 (131,307,059) Net capital assets $ 121,784,897 $ 15,083,034 $ (179,940) $ 136,687,991 Interest costs charged to expense for the years ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 totaled $194,711 and $213,098, respectively. Note 7—Revenue bonds A summary of the revenue bond changes during fiscal 2014 and 2013 is as follows: Outstanding Net Cash Outstanding Current June 30, 2013 Disbursements June 30, 2014 Portion Revenue bonds: Series 2001B $ 3,115,000 $ (260,000) $ 2,855,000 $ 280,000 Total $ 3,115,000 $ (260,000) $ 2,855,000 $ 280,000 Outstanding Net Cash Outstanding Current June 30, 2012 Disbursements June 30, 2013 Portion Revenue bonds: Series 2001B $ 3,355,000 $ (240,000) $ 3,115,000 $ 260,000 Total $ 3,355,000 $ (240,000) $ 3,115,000 $ 260,000


25

Note 7—Revenue bonds (continued) Series 2001 Bonds – In August 2001, the Airport issued $4,990,000 of taxable revenue bonds (“Series 2001B Bonds”). Proceeds of the issuances were used to construct a new rental car facility and related improvements. Interest is payable semiannually on July 1 and January 1. Annual principal installments are due on July 1 and commenced on July 1, 2003. The Series 2001B Bonds is composed of serial bonds which bear interest at rates between 4.4% and 6.2% annually. In addition, the Series 2001B Bonds include $3,355,000 of 6.82% term bonds due July 1, 2021. Under the terms of the Series 2001 Bonds, the Airport is subject to certain covenants including, but not limited to, limitations on the transfer or sale of assets, limitations on the incurrence of additional indebtedness, maintenance of adequate insurance coverage on property, and maintenance of a minimum level of net revenues, as defined, to aggregate annual debt service. As of June 30, 2014 and 2013, the Airport was in compliance with these restrictive covenants. The future debt service requirements of the Series 2001 Bonds are as follows as of June 30, 2014:

Principal Interest Total 2015 $ 280,000 $ 194,711 $ 474,7112016 295,000 175,615 470,6152017 320,000 155,496 475,4962018 340,000 133,672 473,6722019 365,000 110,484 475,4842020-2023 1,255,000 174,933 1,429,933 Total $ 2,855,000 $ 944,911 $ 3,799,911

Note 8—Unearned credits In accordance with the Rental Car bond resolution, the Airport lent the service center project $3,500,000 plus $400,000 in capitalized interest. $3,900,000 was recorded as a Notes Receivable and Deferred Revenue as of June 30, 2003. This amount is being amortized over 20 years at 5.5% and repaid out of CFC funds. The portion that reduced Notes Receivable and Unearned Revenue for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2014 and June 30, 2013, is $195,475 and $185,284, respectively, with a remaining balance of $2,240,614 and $2,436,089, respectively. Note 9—Capital contributions For the years ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, the Airport recognized capital contributions primarily from the FAA totaling $8,190,973 and $4,630,642, respectively, in its statements of revenues, expenses, and changes in net assets.


26

Note 10—Commitments and contingencies The Airport is party to various legal action in the ordinary course of business from time to time. Management believes that such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Airport’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Airport’s ability to derive net revenues from operations depends upon various factors, many of which are not within the control of the Airport. The primary sources of net revenues are parking revenues and the Airline Operating Agreements between the Airport and the airlines. The Airline Operating Agreements provide for the landing fees, terminal rentals, and ramp fees to be charged to the airlines. Should an airline default under the terms of the Airline Operating Agreement, management believes it can take certain actions to mitigate any potential adverse impact. At any point in time, the U.S. economy, excess airline capacity, and industry-wide competition through airfare discounting may create significant constraints on the operations of the airlines. Due to these factors, the financial results of the Airport are largely dependent upon conditions in the national economy and the U.S. airline industry. The scheduled debt service requirements on the 2001 Bonds are guaranteed by third-party insurers. Debt service on the Series 2001 Bonds is insured by Financial Security Assurance, Inc. The ultimate ability of such insurers to meet their obligations with respect to the debt service requirements will be predicated on their future financial condition. Additionally, the Airport receives significant financial assistance from federal governmental agencies in the form of grants and other awards. The disbursement of resources received under such programs generally requires compliance with terms and conditions specified in the grant agreements and is subject to audit by grantor agencies. Management believes the Airport is in compliance with all such terms and conditions. The Airport had entered into commitments for construction contracts for $72,984,931, of which $15,095,471 is outstanding at June 30, 2014. Note 11—Pension plan and post‐retirement benefits All Airport permanent employees are members of the South Carolina Retirement System (the “Plan”), a cost-sharing multiple-employer defined benefit pension plan administered by the Retirement Division of the State Budget and Control Board. The Plan offers retirement and disability benefits, cost of living adjustments on an ad hoc basis, life insurance benefits, and survivor benefits. The Plan’s provisions are established under Title 9 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. A Comprehensive Annual Financial Report containing financial statements and required supplementary information for the Plan is issued and is publicly available by writing to the South Carolina Retirement System, P.O. Box 11960, Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1960. Plan members were required to contribute 7.5% (8.0% as of July 2014) of their annual covered salary to the Plan, and the Airport contributes 10.6% (10.9% as of July 2014), which is an actuarially determined rate. The Airport’s Plan-matching contribution in fiscal years 2014, 2013 and 2012 was approximately $585,900, $533,700 and $464,500, respectively, and equaled the required contributions for those years. The Airport matches 100% of employee contributions to their 401(k) and/or 457 plans up to 5% of the employee’s gross income. The Airport’s 401(k) matching contribution in the fiscal years ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 was $98,331 and $86,790, respectively.


27

Note 12—Restricted assets Certain proceeds from the Airport’s debt service accounts and reserve funds held by their bond trustee, as well as its CFC receipts and receivables not yet spent at year-end, are classified as restricted assets on the statements of net position because their use is limited by applicable bond covenants and concession agreements. The Investments – Held by Trustee account is used to represent resources set aside to subsidize potential deficiencies from the Airport’s operations that could adversely affect debt service payments. The Cash and Receivables accounts represent contract facility charges that have either been received or earned by the Airport but not yet spent as of June 30, 2014 and 2013. These funds are to be used by the Airport to either prepay their 2001 revenue bonds or to fund additional improvements to the rental car facilities at the Airport. Note 13—Risk management The Airport, like other business enterprises, is exposed to various risks including, but not limited to, fire, accident, natural disasters, fraud, torts, error & omissions, environmental incidents, cybercrime, damage/destruction of assets, as well as other causal factors. The following polices are carried by the Airport to protect against such risks and are competitively bid out each year with an insurance brokerage firm:

General liability, war risk, non-owned aircraft liability, and hangarkeepers, Commercial Crime (Dishonesty, Forgery, Computer and Funds Transfer Fraud), Public officials liability (Directors & Officers (“D&O”) liability, Professional Liability Insurance), Workers Compensation, Auto comprehensive/collision/liability, Building and personal property, Environmental mitigation, Terminal Improvement Program Builder’s Risk, and Inland marine

The Airport has not significantly reduced any of its insurance coverage from the prior year, and settled claims have not exceeded the Airport’s insurance coverage in the past five years.

* * * * *

28

REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED

IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS

To the Commissioners of Greenville-Spartanburg Airport District Greer, South Carolina

We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, the aggregate discretely presented component units, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of Greenville Spartanburg Airport District (the “Airport”), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2014, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the Airport’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated October 20, 2014.

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the Airport’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Airport’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Airport’s internal control.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.

Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Airport’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

29

Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Greenville, South Carolina October 20, 2014

30

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT COULD HAVE A DIRECT AND MATERIAL EFFECT ON EACH MAJOR PROGRAM AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR A‐133

To the Commissioners of Greenville-Spartanburg Airport District Greer, South Carolina

REPORT ON COMPLIANCE FOR EACH MAJOR FEDERAL PROGRAM

We have audited Greenville-Spartanburg Airport District’s (the “Airport”) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect on each of the Airport’s major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2014. The Airport’s major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor’s results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs.

Management’s Responsibility Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to its federal programs.

Auditor’s Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance for each of the Airport’s major federal programs based on our audit of the types of compliance requirements referred to above. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A-133 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Airport’s compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.

We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance for each major federal program. However, our audit does not provide a legal determination of the Airport’s compliance.

Opinion on Each Major Federal Program In our opinion, the Airport complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2014.

REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE

Management of the Airport is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above. In planning and performing our audit of compliance, we considered the Airport’s internal control over compliance with the types of requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each major federal program to determine the auditing procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing an opinion on compliance for each major federal program and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Airport’s internal control over compliance.

31

A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.

Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of OMB Circular A-133. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

Greenville, South Carolina October 20, 2014

Total Federal

Expenditures

July 1, 2013 Cumulative July 1, 2013 July 1, 2013 Cumulative Maximum

Project Number and Description CFDA to to to to to Federal

(Notes 1 and 2) Number June 30, 2014 June 30, 2014 June 30, 2014 June 30, 2014 June 30, 2014 Participation

Department of Transportation - Airport Improvement Program: Grant No. 3-45-0028-46 Rehabilitate Terminal Building (design) 20.106 -$ 7,992,080$ -$ 1,064,376$ 3,770,082$ 3,770,082$

Grant No. 3-45-0028-47 Rehabilitate Terminal Building - (Constr) Phase I 20.106 - 7,868,251 - 1,596,792 3,565,266 3,565,266

Grant No. 3-45-0028-48 Rehabilitate Terminal Building - (Constr) Phase II; 20.106 46,063,727 46,063,727 7,875,621 7,875,621 7,875,621 11,750,913 Rehabilitate Terminal Aprol

Transportation Security Administration N/A 120,450 2,117,531 110,220 110,220 2,037,727 2,102,915

Total 46,184,177$ 64,041,589$ 7,985,841$ 10,647,009$ 17,248,696$ 21,189,176$

See notes to schedule of expenditures of federal awards.


SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS

YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014

Total Project Costs Incurred Received from Granting Agency

Grant Status ‐ Grant Funds

32

GREENVILLE‐SPARTANBURG AIRPORT DISTRICT NOTES TO THE SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS JUNE 30, 2014

33

Note 1—Summary of significant accounting policies

Basis of Presentation — The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards for the year ended June 30, 2014, for projects in effect from August 15, 2011 through June 30, 2014, was prepared using the accrual basis of accounting, taking into consideration costs incurred and payable at year end.

Grant Descriptions — The Greenville-Spartanburg Airport District (the “Airport”) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) entered into the following agreements:

a. Grant agreement dated August 15, 2011 (Project #3-45-0028-46), provided funds to rehabilitate the Terminal Building. Under the provisions of the grant agreement, the FAA is to reimburse the Airport for 95% of allowable costs (60%) not to exceed $3,770,082.

b. Grant agreement dated September 13, 2012 (Project #3-45-0028-47), provided funds to rehabilitate the Terminal Building. Under the provisions of the grant agreement, the FAA is to reimburse the airport for 90% of the allowable costs (60%) not to exceed $3,565,266.

c. Grant agreement dated August 13, 2013 and September 5, 2013 (Project #3-45-0028-48), provides funds to rehabilitate the Terminal Building. Under the provisions of the grant agreement, the FAA is to reimburse the airport for 90% of the allowable costs (60%) not to exceed $11,750,913.

The Airport and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) are parties to a Law Enforcement Officer Agreement dated September 2, 2003, which provides reimbursement for the cost of law enforcement officers at the Airport’s passenger screening locations. This agreement was extended multiple times, with the most recent being October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2014. Under the provisions of the agreement, the TSA is to reimburse the Airport for 100% of the cost of law enforcement, not to exceed $361,350.

Note 2—Status of Projects

As of June 30, 2014, the following projects were open:

Project #3-45-0028-48 Transportation Security Administration

Note 3—Audits Performed by Other Organizations

There were no audits performed by other organizations of the Airport’s federal award program for the year ended June 30, 2014.

* * * * * *

GREENVILLE‐SPARTANBURG AIRPORT DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNE 30, 2014

34

Section I. Summary of Auditor’s Results Financial Statements Type of auditor’s report issued: Unmodified Internal control over financial reporting:

Material weakness(es) identified? yes X no Significant deficiency(ies) identified? yes X none reported

Noncompliance material to financial statements

noted? yes X no Federal Awards Internal control over major programs:

Material weakness(es) identified? yes X no Significant deficiency(ies) identified? yes X no

Noncompliance material to federal awards: yes X no Type of auditor’s report issued on compliance for major programs: Unmodified Any audit findings disclosed that are required to

be reported in accordance with Section 510(a) of OMB Circular A-133? yes X no

Identification of major programs:

CFDA# Program Name 20.106 Department of Transportation- Airport Improvement Program

GREENVILLE‐SPARTANBURG AIRPORT DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNE 30, 2014

35

Section I. Summary of Auditor’s Results (continued)

Dollar threshold used to distinguish between type A and type B programs: $ 300,000

Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee? X yes no

Section II. Financial Statement Findings No findings reported.

Section III. Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs No findings reported.

GREENVILLE‐SPARTANBURG AIRPORT DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF STATUS OF PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNE 30, 2014

36

Section IV. Summary of Prior Year Findings

There were no prior year findings.


www.gspairport.com

_____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Airport Commission FROM: Jack G. Murrin, VP of Administration & Finance/CFO DATE: November 24, 2014 _____________________________________________________________ ITEM DESCRIPTION – New Business Item B Audit Committee Recommendation regarding Extension of Auditor contract BACKGROUND Article 7 “Certain Covenants of the District”, Section 716, of the 1988 GSP Master Bond Resolution mandates that the District shall annually , within 120 days after the close of each Fiscal Year, cause an audit to be made of its books and accounts by an independent and recognized certified public accounting firm. Historically, the District has maintained long-term relationships with their auditors. We were with Arthur Andersen for over 20 years before we moved to Deloitte Touche. We were with Deloitte Touche for 9 years before Dave started at GSP. Upon Dave’s arrival, we submitted an RFP for auditing services, and selected our current auditing firm, Cherry Bekaert. Cherry Bekaert was originally awarded a five year contract beginning with the audit of the District’s FYE June 30, 2011. We are currently in the final year of their contract (FYE June 30, 2015). ISSUES Planning for the award of an auditing contract begins well before any work commences. If we are to change auditing firms, the RFP should be issued and the auditing firm selected no later the first quarter of contract year #1, which, in this case, would be no later than the 3rd quarter of next year. The main issue to consider is the impact of the Terminal Improvement Program (TIP). Besides becoming very familiar with our accounting systems, policies, and procedures,


www.gspairport.com

Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission New Business Item B Acceptance of Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport Financial Audit and Schedules of Expenditures for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011 Page 2

the current auditing firm has overseen the TIP program from inception. Bringing a new auditing firm in mid-project will present some challenges, and possibly additional costs. ALTERNATIVES The alternatives are:

1. Submit a new RFP for auditing firms within the next 6 months for a new 5 year contract

2. Extend the contract with our current auditing firms for a period of 3 years 3. Extend the contract with our current auditing firm on a year to year basis

FISCAL IMPACT Uncertain … if we submit a new RFP, we are not certain what the results will be. In FYE 6/30/201, we paid $54,100 with Deloitte Touche. We submitted the RFP, and selected the low bidder, Cherry Bekaert, for $29,500. The auditing fees by year for Cherry Bekaert have been $29,500 in year #1, $30,400 in year #2, $31,300 in year #3, $31,900 in year #4 (the fye 6/30/2014 just completed), and will be $32,700 next year. As previously mentioned, the low bidder might, because of TIP, and coming in mid-stream of the project, be significantly higher than remaining with Cherry Bekaert. Cherry Bekaert has represented to us that if granted a contract extension, than the fees will escalate at no more than CPI. RECOMMENDED ACTION Our relationship with Cherry Bekaert has been very favorable. They have consistently delivered on-time, and have exceeded our expectations, going above and beyond what they are contractually obligated to do. Management presented this issue to the Audit Committee on Friday, October 31, 2014 and discussed the alternative solutions. It is the Audit Committee’s recommendation that the Airport Commission accept a 3 year extension through the FYE June 30, 2018 audit of our contract with Cherry Bekaert as long as they keep their cost increases at or below CPI (Consumer Price Index).


www.gspairport.com

_____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Airport Commission FROM: Kevin E. Howell, Vice President/COO DATE: November 24, 2014 _____________________________________________________________ ITEM DESCRIPTION - New Business Item C Approval of Final Rankings for GSP Campus Landscape Master Plan BACKGROUND The GSP Campus Landscape Master Plan (LMP) is a budgeted capital project and upon completion will provide Staff and the Commission a planning guide for future improvements on the campus, set goals and the vision for future landscape at GSP and ensure the entire campus property is consistent in quality and type of landscaping. The major objectives of the GSP Campus Landscape Master Plan are:

• to develop a campus landscape management approach that unifies the entire campus;

• to establish landscape standards that protect and enhance the image and character of GSP;

• to develop a planned approach for dealing with the maintenance and replacement of aging and mature trees in key areas such as the primary entrance road, in the terminal parking lots and in the immediate terminal vicinity;

• to develop a landscape management system that provides an integrated and environmentally sensitive approach that helps the District achieve its goals of environmental sustainability; and

• to create a companion tool to the GSP Airport Master Plan and GSP Land Use Planning and Development Study, “GSP360 Beyond the Runway”.


www.gspairport.com

Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission New Business Item C Approval of Final Rankings for GSP Campus Landscape Master Plan Page 2

Staff prepared a Request for Proposals (RFP) and asked all three (3) on-call consultants to respond. Proposals were received from AVCON, Michael Baker International and WK Dickson.

The Selection Committee (comprised of the President/CEO, VP/COO, Director of Facilities, Properties Manager, Facilities Manager and Grounds Supervisor) reviewed the proposals and ranked them in accordance to the evaluation criteria as outlined in the RFP. The evaluation criteria utilized is shown below:

RFP Evaluation Criteria:

1. Previous experience with similar projects and proven management and technical expertise, including specialized experience in campus landscape master planning with institutions and organizations (25 points)

2. Demonstrated performance in providing well-organized, accurate and coordinated planning documents (20 points)

3. Qualifications and experience of staff directly involved in this project (15 points) 4. Proposer’s apparent resources, staffing and capacity to meet the needs of this

project (10 points) 5. Overall quality and completeness of proposal (10 points) 6. Client reference checks (10 points) 7. Price (10 points)

ISSUES In accordance with administrative policy, it is Staff’s role to conduct the solicitation process and make a recommendation of a final ranking to the Commission. The Commission has final approval of the ranking. The Committee’s recommended final ranking is:

1 – W.K. Dickson & Co., Inc. 2 – AVCON, Inc. 3 – Michael Baker International

The Committee recommended WK Dickson as the highest ranked firm on this RFP for the following reasons: the Committee felt the WK Dickson team was the strongest team in terms of previous experience in comparable landscape planning type projects with similar size and scope; the WK Dickson team provided a solid team of local and regional sub consultants with subject matter expertise that covers all of the envisioned scope /


www.gspairport.com

Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission New Business Item C Approval of Final Rankings for GSP Campus Landscape Master Plan Page 3

subject areas of the LMP and the WK Dickson key team members are comprised of very qualified personnel from firms with adequate time resources and capacity to perform this project. Upon approval of the final rankings, Staff will attempt to negotiate an agreement with the highest ranked firm. In the event an agreement cannot be reached with the highest ranked firm, GSP will formally terminate the negotiations and proceed to negotiate with the second-highest ranked firm and so on. ALTERNATIVES No alternatives are recommended at this time. FISCAL IMPACT Approval of the final ranking itself does not have a direct fiscal impact. However once the rankings are approved Staff will negotiate and finalize a work authorization with the highest ranked firm. The work authorization will be within the project budget of $200,000.00. It should be noted that the District does not intend to use the entire budget for the LMP authorization. An important goal of this project it to deliver the planning work as cost efficiently as possible and apply any remaining available funds towards an initial Phase 1 for actual implementation. RECOMMENDED ACTION It is respectfully requested that the Airport Commission resolve to (1) approve the final rankings for the GSP Campus Landscape Master Plan as presented above; (2) authorize Staff to negotiate and finalize agreements with the highest ranked firm (if an acceptable agreement cannot be reached with the highest ranked firm, negotiations will be formally terminated and will then proceed with the next ranked firm and so forth); and (3) authorize the President/CEO to execute all necessary documents.


www.gspairport.com

_____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Airport Commission FROM: David Edwards, President/CEO DATE: November 24, 2014 _____________________________________________________________ ITEM DESCRIPTION - New Business Item C Adoption of the Greenville-Spartanburg Airport District Strategic Business Plan BACKGROUND Over the last 12 months, the GSP Airport Commission and GSP Airport District Staff have been working on a Strategic Business Plan for the Greenville Spartanburg Airport District. This 2014 - 2020 Strategic Business Plan will guide both the Airport Commission and Staff over the next six (6) years. ISSUES The Airport Commission should formally adopt the final 2014 – 2020 Strategic Business Plan to solidify the overall business direction for the Airport District. The Airport Commission will be provided will annual performance updates beginning in July 2015. ALTERNATIVES No alternatives are recommended at this time. FISCAL IMPACT None specifically identified at this time. However, the costs to achieve specific goals and objectives that are included in the plan will be incorporate into the GSP Airport District’s annual operating budget.


www.gspairport.com

Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission New Business Item D Adoption of the Greenville-Spartanburg Airport District Strategic Business Plan Page 2

RECOMMENDED ACTION It is respectfully requested that the Airport Commission resolve to adopt the 2014 – 2020 Strategic Business Plan for the Greenville-Spartanburg Airport District.

2000 GSP Drive, Suite 1 ● Greer, SC 29651 ● Greenville: 864.877.7426 ● Spartanburg: 864.439.4476 ● Fax: 864.848.6225 www.gspairport.com

MEMORANDUM TO: Members of Airport Commission FROM: David Edwards, President/CEO DATE: November 24, 2014

PRESIDENT/CEO’S REPORT: A. Aviation Industry Update.

B. Terminal Art Program Update.

C. Air Service Meeting Update.

http://www.gspairport.com/


www.gspairport.com

_____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Airport Commission FROM: David Edwards, President/CEO DATE: November 24, 2014 _____________________________________________________________ ITEM DESCRIPTION – Information Section Item A September 2014 - Traffic Report SUMMARY For September 2014 passenger traffic was up 2.7% over the same month in 2013. Cargo traffic was up 12.6% for September 2014 over September 2013. Load factors continue to be strong with an overall average of 84.8%. Southwest’s load factor was 79.6% for the month, which continues their strong performance trends recently. Providing a look forward into the service levels for December 2014 is a schedule comparison for the month vs the same month last year including flights and seats by airline and non-stop market served. While there were minor adjustments to seat capacity, the largest impact on flights and seats continues to be Southwest’s reduction of service to Nashville and the elimination of Cleveland service by United. As such flight capacity is down 6.8% and seats are down at 5.1%.

[This Area Intentionally Left Blank]


www.gspaiport.com

Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission Information Section Item A September 2014 Traffic Report Page 2

A comparison of the North America National Passenger Traffic Growth Averages for 2014 to GSP’s Passenger Traffic Growth is depicted below: Attached are copies of the detailed traffic report for September 2014.

Sep 2014 Sep 2013Percentage

Change *CYTD-2014 *CYTD-2013Percentage

ChangeCategory *MOV12-2014 *MOV12-2013Percentage

Change

Monthly Traffic ReportGreenville-Spartanburg International AirportSeptember 2014

Passenger Traffic

EnplanedDeplaned

81,04578,975

78,99276,896

712,108 693,990701,346 686,497

2.6%2.7%

Total 160,020 155,888 2.7% 1,413,454 1,380,487

2.6%2.2%

2.4%

955,885943,908

936,529929,079

1,899,793 1,865,608 1.8%

2.1%1.6%

Cargo Traffic (Pounds)

Express and Mail

Freight

Total

6,2421,955

2,757,9982,134,000

3,5333,352

2,467,5021,877,413

EnplanedDeplaned

EnplanedDeplaned

Subtotal

Subtotal

76.7%-41.7%

11.8%13.7%

4,891,998 4,344,915 12.6%

8,197 6,885 19.1%

4,900,195 4,351,800 12.6%

1,437,574984,074

23,424,18519,232,231

37,73731,285

24,058,92818,706,039

1,447,960995,205

32,293,32425,836,935

51,74843,617

32,187,86726,024,854

2698.1%2181.7%

0.3%-0.7%-0.1%

2461.9%

3.9%

3709.5%3045.5%

-2.6%2.8%

-0.3%

3408.5%

5.2%

42,656,416 42,764,967

2,421,648 69,022

45,078,064 42,834,072

58,130,259 58,212,721

2,443,165 95,365

60,573,424 58,308,169

Monday, November 17, 2014

*CYTD = Calendar Year to Date and *Mov12 = Moving Twelve Months.

Page 1 of 2



ChangeCategory *MOV12-2014 *MOV12-2013Percentage

Change

Monthly Traffic ReportGreenville-Spartanburg International AirportSeptember 2014

Aircraft Operations

AirlinesCommuter/Air Taxi

Subtotal

GeneralAviation

Military

Subtotal

987 1,139

778

1,962 2,075

893

109 104

2,949

Total

3,214

887 997

3,836 4,211

-13.3%

-5.4%

-8.2%

-12.9%

4.8%

-11.0%

-8.9%

8,413

17,127

689

8,703

18,836

924

11,810

25,272

1,267

11,599

23,213

875

-3.3%

-9.1%

-7.3%

-5.7%

-25.4%

-7.9%

-7.4%

-1.8%

-8.1%

-6.1%

-5.9%

-30.9%

-8.9%

-6.7%

25,540 27,539 34,812 37,082

6,696 7,097 8,910 9,473

7,385 8,021

32,925 35,560

9,785 10,740

44,597 47,822

Fuel Gallons

100LLJet A (GA)

Subtotal

Jet A (A/L)

Total

59,1174,551

63,668

63,8662,857

774,538

495,73133,067

6,302,586

609,00722,987

7,532,206

696,83441,657

8,886,305

841,95832,313

10,403,601

63,668 66,723 -4.6% -16.3% -15.5%528,798 631,994 738,491 874,271

127,336 841,261 -84.9% -16.3% -14.7%6,831,384 8,164,200 9,624,796 11,277,872

59.3%-7.4%

43.9%-18.6%

28.9%-17.2%

-91.8% -16.3% -14.6%


*CYTD = Calendar Year to Date and *Mov12 = Moving Twelve Months.

Page 2 of 2

Scheduled Airline Enplanements, Seats, and Load FactorsGreenville-Spartanburg International AirportSeptember 2014



Change

7,0485,7296,308

Allegiant Air

EnplanementsSeatsLoad Factor

5.2%11.7%

85.5% 90.8% -5.9%

57,15064,392

58,21362,464

88.8% 93.2%

-1.8%3.1%

-4.8%

6,026

4,2883,7534,250

American Airlines


5.4%0.9%

92.2% 88.3% 4.4%

34,95538,104

34,52838,696

91.7% 89.2%

1.2%-1.5%2.8%

3,954

35,02727,26536,142

Delta Air Lines


9.1%-3.1%

85.0% 75.4% 12.6%

244,549281,504

222,016289,915

86.9% 76.6%

10.1%-2.9%13.4%

29,759

16,28914,39323,998

Southwest Airlines


-9.9%-32.1%

79.6% 60.0% 32.8%

122,821166,183

147,862242,124

73.9% 61.1%

-16.9%-31.4%21.0%

12,973

Monday, November 17, 2014 *CTYD = Calendar Year to Date and *Mov12 = Moving Twelve Months.



Change

14,04411,79714,800

United Airlines


-2.9%-5.1%

81.6% 79.7% 2.3%

102,634123,866

102,640133,277

82.9% 77.0%

0.0%-7.1%7.6%

11,456

18,88315,79219,781

US Airways


6.9%-4.5%

89.4% 79.8% 12.0%

148,517168,779

126,980158,856

88.0% 79.9%

17.0%6.2%

10.1%

16,877

81,04595,579

78,729105,279


2.9%-9.2%

84.8% 74.8% 13.4%

Totals

710,626842,828

692,239925,332

2.7%-8.9%

84.3% 74.8% 12.7%

Monday, November 17, 2014 *CTYD = Calendar Year to Date and *Mov12 = Moving Twelve Months.

Monthly Enplanements By YearGreenville-Spartanburg International Airport

Enp

lane

men

ts

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

2012 ‐ 65927 ‐ 64529 ‐ 76948 ‐ 80451 ‐ 86838 ‐ 88647 ‐ 86866 ‐ 83092 ‐ 78780 ‐ 88059 ‐ 79321 ‐ 75159

2013 ‐ 63985 ‐ 62384 ‐ 77089 ‐ 76724 ‐ 85182 ‐ 85239 ‐ 84124 ‐ 80271 ‐ 78992 ‐ 86117 ‐ 76827 ‐ 80833

2014 ‐ 65785 ‐ 60862 ‐ 77715 ‐ 81592 ‐ 87611 ‐ 88079 ‐ 86553 ‐ 82866 ‐ 81045 ‐ (Blank) ‐ (Blank) ‐ (Blank)


Monthly Seats By YearGreenville-Spartanburg International Airport

Sea

ts


20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

2012 ‐ 106011 ‐ 97847 ‐ 105054 ‐ 104143 ‐ 110565 ‐ 106986 ‐ 109144 ‐ 111587 ‐ 105557 ‐ 113215 ‐ 106835 ‐ 101242

2013 ‐ 97356 ‐ 91291 ‐ 101741 ‐ 101609 ‐ 109279 ‐ 105334 ‐ 108837 ‐ 106408 ‐ 105415 ‐ 108690 ‐ 97388 ‐ 96755



Monthly Load Factors By YearGreenville-Spartanburg International Airport

Load

Fac

tor

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2012 ‐ 62.19% ‐ 65.95% ‐ 73.25% ‐ 77.25% ‐ 78.54% ‐ 82.86% ‐ 79.59% ‐ 74.46% ‐ 74.63% ‐ 77.78% ‐ 74.25% ‐ 74.24%

2013 ‐ 65.72% ‐ 68.34% ‐ 75.77% ‐ 75.51% ‐ 77.95% ‐ 80.92% ‐ 77.29% ‐ 75.44% ‐ 74.93% ‐ 79.23% ‐ 78.89% ‐ 83.54%

2014 ‐ 74.11% ‐ 78.74% ‐ 82.25% ‐ 84.28% ‐ 87.54% ‐ 89.12% ‐ 89.22% ‐ 86.00% ‐ 84.79% ‐ (Blank) ‐ (Blank) ‐ (Blank)


Total Monthly Passengers By YearGreenville-Spartanburg International Airport

Tota

l Pas

seng

ers


20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

2012 ‐ 131355 ‐ 127238 ‐ 153029 ‐ 161124 ‐ 172160 ‐ 175321 ‐ 172195 ‐ 167013 ‐ 156476 ‐ 175863 ‐ 160627 ‐ 148631

2013 ‐ 126751 ‐ 124741 ‐ 153094 ‐ 153880 ‐ 168776 ‐ 167852 ‐ 166886 ‐ 162617 ‐ 155888 ‐ 174231 ‐ 153645 ‐ 158463



Scheduled Airline Market Shares (Enplanements)Greenville-Spartanburg International AirportReport Period From September 2014 Through September 2014

7%5%

37%

16%

14%

21%Allegiant Air

American Airlines

Delta Air Lines

Southwest Airlines

United Airlines

US Airways


Airline Flight CompletionsGreenville-Spartanburg International AirportSeptember 2014

Airline

ScheduledFlights

Cancellations Due To

Field Mechanical Weather OtherPercentage of

Completed FlightsTotal

Cancellations

Allegiant Air 41 0 0 0 0 100.0%0

Alliance Air Charter 3 0 0 0 0 100.0%0

American Airlines 86 0 0 0 0 100.0%0

Ameristar Jet Charter 9 0 0 0 0 100.0%0

Berry Aviation 1 0 0 0 0 100.0%0

Delta Air Lines 379 0 0 0 0 100.0%0

Federal Express 38 0 0 0 0 100.0%0


Airline

ScheduledFlights




Cancellations

Freight Runners Express 1 0 0 0 0 100.0%0

IFL Group 11 0 0 0 0 100.0%0

Kalitta Air 6 0 0 0 0 100.0%0

Kolo Canyons Air Service 1 0 0 0 0 100.0%0

Martinaire 1 0 0 0 0 100.0%0

McNeely Charter Service 6 0 0 0 0 100.0%0

Priority Air Charter 3 0 0 0 0 100.0%0

Royal Air Freight 7 0 0 0 0 100.0%0

Southwest Airlines 115 0 0 0 0 100.0%0


Airline

ScheduledFlights




Cancellations

United Airlines 284 0 0 0 2 99.3%2

UPS 33 0 0 0 0 100.0%0

US Airways 375 0 2 5 0 98.1%7

USA Jet 1 0 0 0 0 100.0%0

Total 0 2 5 21,401 9 99.4%


Schedule Weekly Summary Report for all nonstop Passenger (All) flights from GSP for travel December 2014 vs. December 2013

All flights, seats, and ASMs given are per week.

Mktg Al Orig Dest Miles Ops/Week Seats Ops/Week Seats Ops/Week Seats Ops/Week SeatsAA GSP DFW 862 20 1,203 20 1,000 0 203 0.0% 20.3%DL GSP ATL 153 52 6,409 52 5,664 0 745 0.0% 13.2%DL GSP DTW 508 25 1,250 25 1,250 0 0 0.0% 0.0%DL GSP LGA 610 11 550 12 600 (1) (50) (8.3%) (8.3%)G4 GSP FLL 620 2 332 2 332 0 0 0.0% 0.0%G4 GSP PGD 550 0 0 2 332 (2) (332) (100.0%) (100.0%)G4 GSP PIE 482 2 354 2 332 0 22 0.0% 6.6%G4 GSP SFB 426 2 332 2 332 0 0 0.0% 0.0%UA GSP CLE 450 0 0 6 300 (6) (300) (100.0%) (100.0%)UA GSP EWR 594 19 950 19 950 0 0 0.0% 0.0%UA GSP IAD 383 14 700 21 1,050 (7) (350) (33.3%) (33.3%)UA GSP IAH 838 10 500 6 300 4 200 66.7% 66.7%UA GSP ORD 577 20 1,000 20 1,000 0 0 0.0% 0.0%US GSP CLT 76 51 2,756 51 2,957 0 (201) 0.0% (6.8%)US GSP DCA 396 18 900 18 900 0 0 0.0% 0.0%US GSP PHL 514 13 650 15 750 (2) (100) (13.3%) (13.3%)WN GSP BNA 266 0 0 6 858 (6) (858) (100.0%) (100.0%)WN GSP BWI 425 7 1,001 7 1,001 0 0 0.0% 0.0%WN GSP HOU 845 6 858 7 1,001 (1) (143) (14.3%) (14.3%)WN GSP MDW 562 14 2,002 14 2,002 0 0 0.0% 0.0%

TOTAL 286 21,747 307 22,911 (21) (1,164) (6.8%) (5.1%)

Travel Period Dec 2014 Dec 2013 Diff Percent Diff


www.gspairport.com

_____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Airport Commission FROM: Jack G. Murrin, VP of Administration & Finance/CFO DATE: November 24, 2014 _____________________________________________________________ ITEM DESCRIPTION – Information Section Item B September 2014 - Monthly Financial Report SUMMARY Operating Income was up by 7.23% when compared to the budget for Year-to-Date August 2014. Operating Expenses were down by 13.19% over the budgeted amount for the period. Net operating income was up 33.59% versus the budget through September 2014. For the period ending September 2014 which is 3 months of the fiscal year a total of about $3.63 million has been returned to the bottom line in operating income. Attached is a copy of the detailed financial report for September 2014. Please recognize that this is a preliminary report, unaudited, and only represents three months of activity resulting in variances from budget which can be quite volatile.

September 30, 2014 FINANCIAL STATEMENT PACKAGE

GREENVILLE SPARTANBURG AIRPORT DISTRICTSTATEMENT OF NET POSITION

Interim Report: Prepared on a "Non-GAAP" Basis for Internal Use only UNAUDITED

Current Month Current MonthCurrent FY Prior FY9/30/2014 9/30/2013

AssetsCash Accounts 6,832,054.46 11,385,942.87 Investments-Airport 51,522,336.36 66,133,869.74 Bond Trustee Assets 117,654.22 118,678.45

Accounts Receivable 591,815.27 183,914.03 Less: Reserve for Doubtful Accts -

Net Accounts Receivable 591,815.27 183,914.03

Inventory 173,320.10 190,144.34 Prepaid Insurance 272,950.49 257,782.21

Notes Receivable-RAC District Funds 2,189,057.66 2,387,220.29

Property, Plant & Equipment (PP&E) 282,174,567.21 271,944,292.92 Less: Accumulated Depreciation (116,666,617.49) (133,837,900.07)

Net PP&E 165,507,949.72 138,106,392.85 TOTAL ASSETS 227,207,138.28 218,763,944.78

LESS: LiabilitiesAccounts Payable 907,170.99 825,377.49 Revenue Bonds Payable 2,618,901.62 2,903,675.84 Benefit Liability 802,241.18 768,894.56

TOTAL LIABILITIES 4,328,313.79 4,497,947.89

LESS: Deferred Inflows of ResourcesDeferred Revenues 2,189,057.66 2,387,220.29

TOTAL DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES 2,189,057.66 2,387,220.29

NET POSITIONInvested in Capital Assets, net of Related Debt 162,932,949.72 135,251,392.85

Restricted:A/P - Capital Projects - Restricted 73,752.60 70,002.61 Contract Facility Charge 1,645,366.25 2,192,325.44

Total Restricted: 1,719,118.85 2,262,328.05

Unrestricted 56,037,698.26 74,365,055.70 TOTAL NET POSITION 220,689,766.83 211,878,776.60

GREENVILLE SPARTANBURG AIRPORT DISTRICTPROFIT and LOSS STATEMENT


September 30, 2014 September 30, 2014Actual Budget Actual - Budget % Change

INCOMELanding Area:

Landing Fees 586,575.01 597,929.22 (11,354.21) -1.90%Aircraft Parking Fees 92,104.35 81,128.13 10,976.22 13.53%FBO Into-Plane & Fuel Flowage 26,996.31 25,461.18 1,535.13 6.03%

Subtotal Landing Area 705,675.67 704,518.53 1,157.14 0.16%

Space & Ground Rentals 2,037,250.87 2,023,465.44 13,785.43 0.68%Auto Parking 2,276,994.29 2,052,909.99 224,084.30 10.92% (a)Commercial Ground Transportation 25,159.51 42,350.91 (17,191.40) -40.59%

Concessions:Advertising 72,275.28 62,499.99 9,775.29 15.64%Food & Beverage 94,800.62 77,415.51 17,385.11 22.46%Rental Car 833,318.33 724,364.43 108,953.90 15.04% (b)Retail 102,093.89 90,750.00 11,343.89 12.50%Other - - - #DIV/0!

Subtotal Concessions 1,102,488.12 955,029.93 147,458.19 15.44%

Expense Reimbursements 295,774.14 272,169.33 23,604.81 8.67%Other Income 236,946.22 179,508.72 57,437.50 32.00% (c)

Total Operating Income 6,680,288.82 6,229,952.85 450,335.97 7.23%

EXPENSESSalary & Benefits 1,652,686.34 1,875,259.02 (222,572.68) -11.87% (d)Professional Services 72,524.30 111,389.25 (38,864.95) -34.89% (e)Promotional Activities 177,437.49 177,073.74 363.75 0.21%Administrative 151,273.10 208,946.31 (57,673.21) -27.60% (f)Insurance 99,625.02 99,625.02 - 0.00%Contractual Services 321,224.50 469,574.58 (148,350.08) -31.59% (g)Rentals & Leases 7,416.71 13,932.51 (6,515.80) -46.77%Repairs & Maintenance 58,669.70 80,767.59 (22,097.89) -27.36%Supplies & Equipment 113,879.14 172,367.79 (58,488.65) -33.93% (h)Utilities 392,523.68 301,510.83 91,012.85 30.19% (i)

Total Operating Expenses 3,047,259.98 3,510,446.64 (463,186.66) -13.19%

NET OPERATING INCOME 3,633,028.84 2,719,506.21 913,522.63 33.59%

-------------------------- FISCAL YEAR TO DATE -------------------------------

GREENVILLE SPARTANBURG AIRPORT DISTRICTREVENUES AND EXPENSES TREND GRAPHS


$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5


Mill

ions

CY Historical Operating Revenues (by Month by Year)

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0


Mill

ions

CY Historical Operating Expenses (by Month by Year)

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014


September 30, 2014

(a) Auto Parking OVER BUDGET $224,084.30 - Conservative budgeting

(b) Rental Car OVER BUDGET $108,953.90 - Conservative budgeting

(c) Other Income OVER BUDGET $57,437.50 - Ground handling (charter & non-tenant) 47K over budget YTD - Charter equipment rental 14K over budget YTD

(d) Salary & Benefits UNDER BUDGET $222,572.68 - Timing: Accrued one entire payroll plus two days booked back to June 2014

(e) Professional Services UNDER BUDGET $38,864.95 - Consulting 29K under budget YTD-timing - Legal 8K under budget YTD-timing

(f) Administrative UNDER BUDGET $57,673.21 - Travel/Training 43K under budget-timing YTD - Dues & Subscriptions 10K under budget YTD

(g) Contractual Services UNDER BUDGET $148,350.08 - Parking Mgmt Agreement Expenses 66K under budget-June 2014 expenses paid in July booked back to June - Janitorial Services 35K under budget YTD - Nursery & Landscaping 13K under budget YTD - Elevator & Escalator 21K under budget YTD

(h) Supplies & Equipment UNDER BUDGET $58,488.65 - Timing: Many of our expenses paid in July were booked back to June for year-end purposes.

(i) Utilities OVER BUDGET $91,012.85 - Cyclic nature-high usage in summer

Note: Please recognize that this is a preliminary report, unaudited, and only representsthree months of activity, resulting in variances which can be quite volatile.

YTD ACTUAL VS YTD BUDGET FOOTNOTES


Issue Maturity Interest Cost Basis or EOM FMVDate Date Rate BOY FMV Par FMV Adj

US TreasuryUST T-Bill 4-wk 9/4/2014 10/2/2014 0.150% 4,999,941.65 5,000,000.00 4,999,998.61 56.96

9/4/2014 10/2/2014 0.150% 4,999,941.65 5,000,000.00 4,999,998.61 56.96 9/4/2014 10/2/2014 0.150% 4,999,941.65 5,000,000.00 4,999,998.61 56.96 9/11/2014 10/9/2014 0.005% 4,999,980.55 5,000,000.00 4,999,981.25 0.70 9/18/2014 10/16/2014 0.000% 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 4,999,988.89 (11.11) 9/18/2014 10/16/2014 0.000% 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 4,999,988.89 (11.11)

FRNs 1/31/2014 1/31/2016 0.045% 4,998,950.00 5,000,000.00 4,998,950.00 -

Subtotal-UST 34,998,755.50 35,000,000.00 34,998,904.86$ 149.36

Issue Cost CumulativeDate Basis Yield Balance

SC Local Gov Inv Pool:9/16/2011 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00

11/17/2011 10,000,000.00 12,000,000.00 9/26/2013 (6,000,000.00) 6,000,000.00 4/11/2014 (6,000,000.00) - 4/11/2014 (63,659.16)

Add: Life-to-date Interest 63,659.16 0.1359%Subtotal-UST -$


NBSC:UST T-Bill 1/20/2014 7/24/2014 1,262,000.00 1,262,000.00

8/22/2013 8/21/2014 724,000.00 1,986,000.00 in-transit adjmt to balance (561,217.00) 1,424,783.00

Subtotal-UST 1,424,783.00$


Capital Bank ICS:9/20/2011 2,990,000.00 2,990,000.00

10/18/2011 12,010,000.00 15,000,000.00

Add: Base Capital Bank non-interest bearing account 10,000.00 Add: YTD Interest 88,930.25 0.1500%Less: Fees (45.00)

Subtotal-UST 15,098,885.25$

51,522,573.11$ Total

Weighted blended yield =

0.1060%

Greenville-Spartanburg Airport DistrictSeptember 30, 2014

GREENVILLE SPARTANBURG AIRPORT DISTRICT

Terminal Improvement Project


cash basis cash basis cash basisthrough: 9/30/2014

FYE YTD FYE YTD FYE YTD FYE YTD FYEBudgeted 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Total

Skanska 9,570,188$ 35,931,932$ 4,129,399$ 49,631,519$ RS&H 2,916,235$ 2,650,023$ 5,566,258$

Baker (aka LPA) 1,367,784$ 2,742,449$ 331,025$ 4,441,258$ Jacobs 961,516$ 885,315$ 942,348$ 117,077$ 2,906,256$

RJ Design 65,350$ 220,050$ 285,400$ At&t 205,594$ 205,594$

A3 Communications 170,341$ 170,341$ Air-Transport IT Services 424,339$ 424,339$

G2 Secure Staff 8,508$ 85,979$ 19,806$ 114,293$ CDW Government 1,911$ 62,649$ 3,062$ 67,622$

Michael M. Simpson 49,696$ 9,957$ 59,653$ Phoenix Mechanical 57,500$ 57,500$

Parsons Brincke 50,000$ 50,000$ Project Link 42,509$ 4,946$ 47,455$

McGriff 32,890$ 6,930$ 39,820$ Tidewater Lumber 30,434$ 1,908$ 468$ 32,810$

I-SYS 31,277$ 31,277$ TPM 29,212$ 29,212$

Duke Energy 22,088$ 22,088$ Source Group 21,196$ 21,196$

Other 400$ 57,128$ 64,692$ 14,260$ 136,479$ Total 123,762,496$ 3,878,151$ 14,786,745$ 40,535,386$ 5,140,089$ -$ 64,340,370$

Cumulative $ Spent 3,878,151$ 18,664,896$ 59,200,282$ 64,340,371$ 64,340,371$ % of Budget spent 3.13% 15.08% 47.83% 51.99% 51.99% 51.99%

Construction 9,635,538$ 35,934,969$ 4,238,248$ 49,808,755$ Professional 3,877,751$ 5,002,818$ 3,667,600$ 311,039$ 12,859,207$

Owners Reserve 400$ 148,389$ 932,817$ 590,802$ 1,672,408$ Total -$ 3,878,151$ 14,786,745$ 40,535,385$ 5,140,089$ -$ 64,340,371$

Cumulative $ Spent 3,878,151$ 18,664,896$ 59,200,281$ 64,340,371$ 64,340,371$

0$ 0$ 0$ -$ -$ (0)$

through: 9/30/2014FYE FYE FYE FYE FYE

Budgeted 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 TotalCrawford Strategies 261,000$ 10,900 61,157 75,948 17,599 165,604 Launch Something 279,730$ 25,870 90,133 23,045 12,656 151,704

Total 540,730$ 36,770 151,290 98,993 30,255 - 317,309 Cumulative $ Spent 36,770$ 188,060$ 287,053$ 317,309$ 317,309$ % of Budget spent 6.80% 34.78% 53.09% 58.68% 58.68% 58.68%

through: 9/30/2014FYE FYE FYE FYE FYE

Budgeted 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Total189,553 3,055,535 25,862 3,270,950

RS&H 218,800 41,816 5,300 265,916 Other 56,558 56,558 Total 3,495,000$ 408,353 3,153,909 31,162 - - 3,593,424

Cumulative $ Spent 408,353$ 3,562,262$ 3,593,424$ 3,593,424$ 3,593,424$ % of Budget spent 11.68% 101.92% 102.82% 102.82% 102.82% 102.82%

TIP Public Relations Expenses

RAC CFC Obligations

GREENVILLE SPARTANBURG AIRPORT DISTRICTOther Operating and Maintenance Reserve Funds


FY $ Amount $ AmountAuthorized Date Used YTD

Emergency Repair/Replacement/Operations Fund 750,000$ 7/23/2014 1,962$ LPA Group-Economy Parking Lot drainage issues

1,962$ 748,038$ Remaining Reserve

Business Development Obligations/Incentives 600,000$

-$ 600,000$ Remaining Reserve


www.gspairport.com

_____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Airport Commission FROM: Kevin Howell, Vice President / COO DATE: November 24, 2014 ____________________________________________________________ ITEM DESCRIPTION – Information Section Item C November 2014 – Development/Project Status Report SUMMARY Terminal Improvement Program (TIP): Status – Construction continues on the Enabling Package and Bag Claim / South Bridge Packages. A notice to proceed (NTP) for the Core Phase was issued to SKM effective October 31, 2014. Project Budget – $125,000,000.00 Estimated Completion Date – Summer 2016 Enabling: SKM continues to work on several completion items from the Enabling Phase. The contractor also continues to work on Enabling punchlist work and closeout simultaneously. Bag Claim / South Bridge: The Bag Claim / South Bridge Phase continues to progress towards completion as SKM tries to wrap up several completion items. The interior front knee wall is underway as well as the cloud and overhead lighting in Bag Claim and completion of the new entrance/exit vestibules. Exterior work also continues, including glass and canopy installation, landscaping and irrigation, the crossover canopies to both parking garages, signage, PA and lighting located beneath the curbside canopies.


www.gspairport.com

Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission Information Section Item C November 2014 – Project Status/Update Page 2

SKM is concurrently working on the Pre-Core Package which includes mechanical, electrical and plumbing infrastructure items that are necessary to begin the Core Phase. Pre-Core work is being wrapped up. A Notice to Proceed (NTP) was issued to SKM for the Core effective October 31, 2014. South Cargo Modernization Project: Status – Bidding Project Budget – $1,500,000.00 Estimated Completion Date – to be determined The South Cargo Modernization Project includes general improvements to a portion of the South Cargo Building. Project bid documents are complete and Staff is beginning the procurement and bidding phase. Bidding is anticipated to be completed in December to allow a January NTP. Facilities Building Expansion Project: Status – Construction Phase Project Budget – $2,575,000.00 Estimated Completion Date – to be determined The Facilities Department Building Expansion Project includes construction of an additional building for equipment storage and an addition of an administrative building for the Facilities Department. This project is led by WK Dickson, one of the District’s on-call consulting teams. WK Dickson is supported by several local firms, including DP3 for architecture and Seamon Whiteside - Civil, Burdette - Electrical, Peritus – Mechanical and MMSA - Structural. Mavin Construction has mobilized and is currently working on site/civil work including stormwater detention and building site preparation. Apron Rehabilitation Project (Year 1): Status – Construction Phase Project Budget – $2,000,000.00 Estimated Completion Date – January, 2014


www.gspairport.com

Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission Information Section Item C November 2014 – Project Status/Update Page 3

The Apron Rehabilitation Project includes the Year 1 recommended items outlined in the 2012 LPA Apron Pavement Study. Year 1 / priority items included rehabilitation of the Terminal Apron trench drain and the General Aviation Apron taxilane near Stevens. The contractor has completed a majority of the taxilane improvements near Stevens and the general aviation ramp and has completed the terminal apron repairs adjacent to Gates A1, B1, B2 and B3 and the airside garden. Work is currently underway adjacent to gate B-4. Upon completion of the current work area, the contractor will relocate and continue work on the A concourse side. Weather has had minor impacts to the project, but the contractor continues to progress towards completion in late December / early January depending on further weather. Economy Lot Drainage Improvements Project: Status – Construction Phase Project Budget – $90,000.00 Estimated Completion Date – December 2014 The Economy Lot Drainage Improvements Project is an Emergency Repair Project that became necessary due to underground water seepage to the surface that is causing pavement deterioration and potentially unsafe conditions for pedestrians in the event of sub-freezing temperatures this winter. Staff worked with Michael Baker Co. to prepare a set of bidding documents and advertised the project for bidding. Capital Construction of Spartanburg was awarded the project and work began the week of November 10. Staff is working with Capital Construction to expedite the work before colder weather enters the area.


www.gspairport.com

_____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Airport Commission FROM: Rosylin Weston, Vice President - Communications DATE: November 24, 2014 _____________________________________________________________ ITEM DESCRIPTION – Information Section Item D October 2014 – Communications Report News Stories Broadcast, Print and Online:

• WSPA TV – “ 11 Firearms Found, Confiscated at GSP This Year” • WHNS TV- “Hot Sauce, Grenades among Items at GSP Airport” • WHNS TV- “WW II, Korean War Vets Depart GSP to Spend the Day in DC” • UBJ –“ New to The Street: RJ Rockers Flight Room, Thomas Creek Grill and Hudson” • Spartanburg Herald-Journal–“Police Dog at GSP”

New Releases or Alerts: • TSA to Display/Discuss Prohibited Items at GSP

Website Statistics: WINGSPAN BLOG 10/01/14-10/31/14

• 583 Visitors – 70% were new visitors • 967 pages were viewed by visitors to the blog. The largest spike came as a result of a

construction update post

Elevatingtheupstate.com 10/01/14 - 10/31/14 (Mobile Site) • 90 Sessions, 72% New Visitors • Average Visit Duration – 01:27 Minutes • Most visitors arrived direct. This means visitors were searching for

elevatingtheupstate.com

Elevatingtheupstate.com 10/1/14-10/31/14 • 246 Sessions, 85% New Visitors • Average Visit Duration was 02:14 minutes • Most visitors arrived by clicking the link located on gspairport.com


www.gspairport.com

Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission Information Section Item D November, 2014 Communications Report Page 2

GSPAirport.com 10/01/14 – 10/31/14 • 85,594 Sessions-76% were new visitors • Average Page View per Visit 3.49 Pages • Average Duration on-site 01:30 minutes • 22,710 Visits to Mobile Site

Facebook 10/1/14-10/31/14 62 new Likes 66,354 people have engaged with the GSP Page meaning they clicked on a story or created one Renewals: Terminal Advertising Program Updates: Contract Renewals Thrifty Car Rental at $850.00 per month for 1 year Newly Signed Advertisers Sixt Car Rental at $400.00 per month for 1 year Custard Boutique at $400.00 per month for 1 year Pratt Industries at $300.00 per month for 1 year McBee Station at $600.00 per month for 1 year Customer Service Complaints – Summary

• Too many cars parked curbside in front of the terminal waiting so there was no place for customer to actively load and unload

• Waited too long for bags to arrive in baggage claim • Hotel shuttle too far away from curb • Allegiant Air Representative rude, counter not open for ticket sales

Thanks Again Rewards Program:

486 – Qualified Transactions $ 11,046.00 – Qualified transactions in dollars and cents $ 10.95 – Average amount per concession transaction $ 37.21 – Average amount per parking transaction

Happy Or Not 10/01/14-10/31/14 The Happy Or Not meters were strategically placed at the exits of Thomas Creek Grill and RJ Rockers Flight Room. The screen on each meter had one question for departing customers- How Was Your Visit? The customer was provided with 4 response options, Very Happy, Happy, Not Happy, and Very Unhappy.

• 2,806 Total Responses • 2,271 or 81% Very Happy • 243 or 9% Happy


www.gspairport.com

_____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Airport Commission FROM: Scott C. Carr, A.A.E., Director – Properties and Development DATE: November 24, 2014 _____________________________________________________________ ITEM DESCRIPTION – Information Section Item E November 2014 – Properties and Development Report SUMMARY AirIT – Gate Installation Project Status – AirIT was onsite installing hardware the week of October 13, 2014. Airlines were onsite to complete their software testing the week of October 20, 2014. Project Budget – $68,000 Completion Date – October 31, 2014 The Airport District has contracted with AirIT to extend their Extended Airline System Environment (EASE) from the temporary ticket counters to Gates A7, A9, and B1. This will permit any airline to process passengers through these three gates. As the ongoing terminal apron project continues and upcoming concourse renovations begin, this will allow the Airport District to temporarily relocate airline gates that are impacted by construction activity. Following construction, these gates will be used as “shared use gates” for airline off-schedule operations, charter flights, etc.


www.gspairport.com

Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission Information Section - Item E November 2014 – Properties and Development Report Page 2

AT&T – Communications Line Cutovers Status – All of the T1 lines have been cutover to the new demark room. DSL and POTS lines are in the process of being cutover but are 95% complete. AT&T is still working on a few outstanding lines. Project Budget – $250,000 Estimated Completion Date – November 21, 2014 As part of the TIP, AT&T has installed all new network infrastructure to the new MPOE room. The Airport District is working with tenants to cutover all communications lines on the airport campus from the current MPOE room to the new one. This is required as the present MPOE room will be demolished as part of the upcoming “core phase” of the TIP. Cargo Modernization Project – Phase #1: Status – UPS is in the process of finalizing what direction that they want to move forward with on the new facility. A final answer from them is imminent. Project Budget – $1,500,000 Estimated Completion Date – To Be Determined Project consists of relocating UPS from the south cargo building and ramp to the north cargo ramp and constructing new facilities. The new leasehold area will be sized to handle up to two Boeing 767-300 aircraft simultaneously, loading and unloading of up to eight 53 foot tractor trailer trucks, and new administrative office and support space. Sprint Wireless – Cell Phone Antenna Equipment Upgrade & Capacity Enhancement Project: Status – New cabling and telecommunication equipment is in place. Waiting for new fiber optics line easement agreement to be finalized so that installation can begin. Project Budget – All costs are being covered by Sprint Wireless. Estimated Completion Date – To Be Determined Sprint Wireless is in the process of upgrading the existing antenna equipment located on top of Parking Garage A. The project also includes an increase in network capacity to handle increased call volume in the area and reduce the number of dropped and failed calls.


www.gspairport.com

Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission Information Section - Item E November 2014 – Properties and Development Report Page 3

The project requires that a new fiber optics line be installed by Spirit Telecom. This new line will begin at the intersection of State Route 14 and GSP Drive and run along GSP Drive up to Parking Garage A.


www.gspairport.com

_____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Airport Commission FROM: Marsha Madore, Human Resources Manager DATE: November 24, 2014 _____________________________________________________________ ITEM DESCRIPTION – Information Section Item F November, 2014 SUMMARY Monthly Report No injuries in October Calendar Year-to-Date –injuries to report 8/8/2014 – Doug Ross (Police Department, Police Officer) Intoxicated passenger was resisting arrest. Received hand and jaw contusions. No lost time. 6/3/2014 Nathan Steigel (Police Department, Police Sergeant) Safe rolled onto his foot from a moving dolly. Fractured the right big toe. Lost time = 2 shifts. May, 2014 No injuries to report 4/25/2014 Steve Dunn (Facilities Department, Facilities Technician III – Electrical) Crush injury resulting in a fracture of the 4th finger. – Returned to work 6/16/14. 2/20/2014 Butch Mann (Facilities Department, Facilities Technician IV-HVAC) stepped

off a ladder wrong and sustained a knee injury – returned to work 4/10/14. 2/24/2014 Jonathan Vanderford (Facilities Department, Grounds Technician I) rolled

his foot on the curb – severely sprained ankle – returned to work 3/27/14. 2 Year Historical Annual OSHA Report Submissions:

Calendar Year

Annual Average # Employees

Total Hours Worked by

all Employees

# OSHA Reportable

Work Related Injuries

# OSHA Reportable

Work Related

Illnesses

# Days away from

Work 2013 121 140,106 5 0 3


www.gspairport.com

Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission Information Section Item F Page 2

2012 111 138,439 4 1 13

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TRACKING RESEARCH

3rd QUARTER 2014

September 16, 2014

Prepared for: Rosylin Weston

Director of Public Relations Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport

2000 GSP Drive, Suite 1 Greer, SC 29651

864-848-6256 [email protected]

Prepared by: Research Inc.

4920 Atlanta Highway Suite 333

Alpharetta, GA 30004 770-619-9837

[email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 2 SATISFACTION ..................................................................................................... 4 SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................. 17 RESPONDENT PROFILE ............................................................................................. 32 QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................... 34

1

INTRODUCTION Greenville Spartanburg (GSP) International Airport desires to deliver top-notch service to Upstate travelers. Towards this end, GSP would like to …

• Measure satisfaction with the services offered at the airport. • Identify ways the airport can be improved to better serve traveler needs. • Track changes over time.

This document presents the findings from a quantitative intercept study conducted quarterly among airline passengers and consumers who visit GSP International Airport to drop off or greet airline passengers.

2

METHODOLOGY

WHO Airline passengers and consumers visiting the airport to meet or drop off airline passengers.

WHAT One-on-one intercepts.

WHEN Intercept interviews were conducted on one day of each month on an alternating schedule, comprising two weekdays and one weekend day each quarter. See below.

2014

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 January Saturday February Sunday March Monday April Sunday May Monday June Tuesday July Wednesday August Thursday September Saturday October Sunday November Monday December Tuesday

100 INTERVIEWS

Passengers Greeters 7 am to 10 am 18

5 10:01 am to 1 pm 18 1:01 pm to 4 pm 18

5 4:01 pm to 7 pm 18 7:01 pm to 10:00 pm 18

WHERE GSP International Airport.

HOW Research Inc. was responsible for research design, report preparation and report presentation. Representatives from GSP had the opportunity to approve questionnaire design and methodology at all stages of the research.

Data was verified, coded and tabulated. Findings were

analyzed by senior analysts at Research, Inc.

3

SATISFACTION

4

OVERALL SATISFACTION1 Airport travelers and meeters/greeters were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with GSP International Airport by using a “1” to “7” scale, with “7” indicating they are very satisfied and “1” meaning they are not satisfied at all. Findings reveal that most (83%) airport patrons are very satisfied (a “6” or “7” rating) with GSP International Airport in 2014. 15% are somewhat satisfied (a “4” or “5” rating). Only 2% is dissatisfied.

VERY SATISFIED ("6" OR "7")

83%

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED ("4" OR 5")

15%

NOT AT ALL SATISFIED ("1", "2", OR "3")

2%

YEAR-TO-DATE 2014

Satisfaction with GSP Airport increased from 2nd quarter to 3rd quarter 2014.

QUARTER

2006

(1200) %

2007 (1200)

%

2008 (1200)

%

2009 (1200)

%

2010 (1200)

%

2011 (1200)

%

2012 (1200)

%

2013 (1200)

%

YTD 2014 (600)

%

1st QTR 2014 (300)

%

2nd QTR 2014 (300)

%

3rd QTR 2014 (300)

%

VERY SATISFIED (“6,” OR “7”) 87 90 88 89 88 91 93 90 83 83 81 85 “7” RATING 57 49 58 63 65 65 68 61 51 50 55 47 “6” RATING 31 41 30 26 23 26 25 30 32 33 26 38

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED (“5,” OR “4”)

12 9 11 10 11 8 6 9 15 14 18 13

“5” RATING 10 9 9 8 9 7 5 7 11 9 13 11 “4” RATING 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 4 5 4 2

DISSATISFIED (“1,” “2,” OR “3”) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 “3” RATING 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 “2” RATING 0 - 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 “1” RATING 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 1 Blue shading indicates a significant difference from the total study at the 95% confidence interval. Yellow shading indicates a significant difference from the previous year at the 95% confidence interval.

1 “Please indicate your overall satisfaction with the GSP International Airport by using a ‘1’ to ‘7’ scale. Let a ‘7’ indicate

you are extremely satisfied with the airport and a ‘1’ indicate you are not satisfied at all. You can use any number in between.”

5

OVERALL SATISFACTION2 (CONTINUED)

Satisfaction ratings reveal that people who traveled for leisure purposes are more likely to be very satisfied with GSP International Airport than business travelers.

TYPE OF TRAVEL

YTD 2014 (900)

%

BUSINESS

TRAVELERS (239)

%

LEISURE

TRAVELERS (546)

%

COMBO (25)*

%

VERY SATISFIED (“6” or “7”) [NET] 83 80 83 84 “7” RATING 51 43 54 48 “6” RATING 32 37 29 36

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED (“4” OR “5”) [NET]

15 16 15 16

“5” RATING 11 13 11 16 “4” RATING 4 3 4 -

DISSATISFIED (“1,” “2,” OR “3”) [NET] 2 4 2 - “3” RATING 1 3 1 - “2” RATING 1 1 1 - “1” RATING 0 0 0 - Blue shading indicates a significant difference from total study at the 95% confidence interval. *Caution: Small base. Consumers 65 years of age and older are more likely than passengers in other age groups to be very satisfied with GSP Airport.

AGE

YTD 2014 (900)

%

18–24 (69) %

25-44 (250)

%

45-64 (486)

%

65+ (64) %

VERY SATISFIED (“6” or “7”) [NET] 83 81 84 83 88 “7” RATING 51 42 49 53 55 “6” RATING 32 39 36 30 33

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED (“4” OR “5”) [NET] 15 016 14 15 8 “5” RATING 11 12 11 11 5 “4” RATING 4 4 3 4 3

DISSATISFIED (“1,” “2,” OR “3”) [NET] 2 3 1 2 5 “3” RATING 1 3 1 1 3 “2” RATING 1 - - 1 2 “1” RATING 0 - 0 0 - Blue shading indicates a significant difference from total study at the 95% confidence interval. *Caution: Small base.


you are extremely satisfied with the airport and a ‘1’ indicate you are not satisfied at all. You can use any number in between.”

6

OVERALL SATISFACTION3 Consumers with annual incomes less than $35,000 are most likely to be very satisfied (a rating of “7”) with the airport than other consumers.

INCOME

YTD 2014 (900)

%

LESS THAN $35,000

(83) %

$35,000 TO $74,999

(213) %

$75,000 OR MORE (497)

%

VERY SATISFIED (“6” or “7”) [NET] 83 84 82 83 “7” RATING 51 52 50 50

“6” RATING 32 33 32 33

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED (“4” OR “5”) [NET] 15 12 14 15

“5” RATING 44 8 12 11

“4” RATING 1 4 2 4

DISSATISFIED (“1,” “2,” OR “3”) [NET] 2 4 4 2

“3” RATING 1 2 1 1

“2” RATING 1 1 1 0

“1” RATING 0 - 1 0

Blue shading indicates a significant difference from total study at the 95% confidence interval.


you are very satisfied with the airport and a ‘1’ indicate you are not satisfied at all. You can use any number in between.”

7

SATISFACTION WITH AIRPORT SERVICES4 % RATING A “6” OR “7”

All airport patrons were asked to use a “1” to “7” scale to indicate their satisfaction with GSP International Airport’s performance in 12 different areas. Findings reveal that airport patrons are most satisfied with the skycaps and the Welcome Center in 2014. They are least likely to be very satisfied with the parking in general and ground transportation.

75%

76%

79%

85%

85%

86%

89%

89%

92%

93%

97%

100%SKYCAPS

WELCOME CENTER

FRIENDLINESS OFEMPLOYEES

SECURITY AT PARKING

SPEED OF SERVICE

CLEANLINESS

SECURITY AT GATES

SIGNAGE

LANDSCAPING

RESTAURANT

PARKING

GROUND TRANSPORTATION

% RATING "6" OR "7" ON A "1" TO "7" SCALEYEAR-TO-DATE 2014

4 “Please use the same ‘1’ to ‘7’ scale to indicate your satisfaction with the various vendors and services at the GSP

International Airport.” Note: Respondents who refused to answer this question are excluded from the data.

8


Comparisons of 2nd quarter and 3rd quarter 2014 performance ratings reveal that satisfaction decreased in 8 of the 12 areas measured. However, note some of the bases are extremely small.

QUARTER

2010

(15:1194) %

2011 (18:1199)

%

2012 (14:1197)

%

2013 (13:1197)

%

YTD 2014

(8:900) %

1st QTR 2014

(2:300) %

2nd QTR 2014

(4:300) %

3rd QTR 2014

(4:300) %

SKYCAPS (n=29) 93 99 98 98 100 100 100 100

WELCOME/INFORMA-TION CENTER (n=68)

90 99 100 99 97 100 94 96

FRIENDLY EMPLOYEES (n=894)

92 94 97 96 93 94 95 91

SECURITY AT PARKING (n=12)

93 95 89 100 92 100 100 75

SPEED OF SERVICE (n=899)

91 94 93 94 89 92 90 86

CLEANLINESS (n=900) 96 97 98 96 89 92 87 89

SECURITY AT GATES (n=796)

91 92 89 90 86 86 86 85

SIGNAGE (n=873) 90 93 91 92 85 85 87 81

LANDSCAPING (n=831) 95 98 97 92 85 79 84 91

WINDOWS RESTAURANT (n=58)

79 70 81 80 79 84 73 0

PARKING (n=611) 78 77 74 76 76 82 77 71

GROUND TRANSPORTATION (n=8)

89 67 71 92 75 100 100 0

N=# of respondents answering the question year-to-date. Yellow shading indicates a significant difference from the previous year at the 95% confidence interval.



9


Passengers who travel for leisure are more likely than business travelers to be very satisfied with most of the airport’s services.

TYPE OF TRAVEL

YTD 2014

(8:900) %

BUSINESS TRAVELERS

(1:161)* %

LEISURE TRAVELERS

(5:360)* %

COMBO (0:19)*

%

SKYCAPS (n=29) 100 100 100 -

WELCOME/INFORMA-TION CENTER (n=68) 97 89 97 100

FRIENDLY EMPLOYEES (n=894) 93 93 93 96

SECURITY AT PARKING (n=12) 92 67 100 -

SPEED OF SERVICE (n=899) 89 86 90 96

CLEANLINESS (n=900) 89 83 91 92

SECURITY AT GATES (n=796) 86 79 89 83

SIGNAGE (n=873) 85 83 85 75

LANDSCAPING (n=831) 85 81 85 83

WINDOWS RESTAURANT (n=58) 79 82 68 100

PARKING (n=611) 76 75 74 71

GROUND TRANSPORTATION (n=8) 75 100 83 -

*Caution: Small base. N= # of total respondents answering question year-to-date.



10

SATISFACTION WITH AIRPORT SERVICES7 This table presents all the performance ratings given for the various services at GSP International Airport in 2014. Positively, few customers are dissatisfied (a “1,” “2,” or “3” rating) with any aspect of the airport’s services.

YEAR-TO-DATE 2014

“7” %

“6” %

“5” %

“4” %

“3” %

“2” %

“1” %

SKYCAPS (n=29) 97 3 - - - - -

WELCOME/INFORMA-TION CENTER (n=68) 84 13 1 1 - - -

FRIENDLY EMPLOYEES (n=894) 68 25 5 1 1 - 1

SPEED OF SERVICE (n=899) 63 27 8 1 1 0 0

CLEANLINESS (n=900) 63 26 9 2 0 0 -

LANDSCAPING (n=831) 63 21 10 3 1 1 0

GROUND TRANSPORTATION (n=8) 63 13 13 13 - - -

SIGNAGE (n=873) 62 23 10 3 1 1 0

SECURITY AT GATES (n=796) 61 24 8 2 2 1 1

SECURITY AT PARKING (n=12) 58 33 - - - - 8

WINDOWS RESTAURANT (n=58) 53 26 10 3 5 - 2

PARKING (n=611) 49 28 13 6 3 1 1



11

RESTAURANT/SNACK BAR PURCHASE8 In 2014, airport patrons were asked if they had visited the restaurant or the snack bar on the second floor on the day they were intercepted. Findings reveal that while 6% dined in the restaurant and 1% visited the snack bar, 93% claim they have not dined in either establishment.

ATE IN SNACK BAR1%

ATE IN RESTAURANT

6%

NEITHER93%

YEAR-TO-DATE 2014

Passengers who travel for leisure are slightly more likely than business travelers to have visited a food and beverage establishment in 2014.

TYPE OF TRAVEL

2007

(1200) %

2008 (1200)

%

2009 (1200)

%

2010 (1200)

%

2011 (1200)

%

2012 (1200)

%

2013 (1200)

%

YTD 2014 (900)

%

BUSINESS TRAVELERS

(239) %

LEISURE TRAVELERS

(546) %

COMBO (25)*

%

ATE IN RESTAURANT TODAY

5 19 15 20 25 20 15 6 5 6 4

ATE AT SNACK BAR TODAY

11 7 3 1 0 - 0 1 1 1 -

NEITHER 84 74 82 79 75 80 85 93 94 93 96

*Caution: Small base. Yellow shading indicates a significant difference from the previous year at the 95% confidence interval. Blue shading indicates a significant difference from total study at the 95% confidence interval. 8 “Did you eat in the restaurant or snack bar today?”

Note: Respondents who refused to answer this question are excluded from the data.

12

GATE SNACK BAR PURCHASE9 In 2014, airport patrons were asked if they had made a purchase from the snack bars in the gate areas. Findings reveal that the majority (86%) claim they have not purchased anything from the snack bars.

NOT EAT IN NEW SNACK AREA

86%

ATE IN NEW SNACK AREA14%

YEAR-TO-DATE 2014

TYPE OF TRAVEL

2007

(1078) %

2008 (1080)

%

2009 (1079)

%

2010 (1080)

%

2011 (1080)

%

2012 (1200)

%

2013 (1080)

%

YTD 2014 (810)

%

BUSINESS TRAVELERS

(239) %

LEISURE TRAVELERS

(546) %

COMBO (25)*

%

EATEN OR PURCHASED FOOD AT NEW GATE AREA SNACK BAR

22 30 20 16 11 15 14 14 13 15 24

HAVE NOT EATEN OR PURCHASED FOOD

78 70 80 84 89 85 86 86 87 85 76

Yellow shading indicates a significant difference from previous year at the 95% confidence interval. Note: This question was added in August 2006. Blue shading indicates a significant difference from total study at the 95% confidence interval. *Caution: Small base.

9 “Have you eaten or purchased food from the new gate area snack bars?”


13

GATE SNACK BAR SATISFACTION10 In 2014, airport patrons were asked to use a “1” to “7” scale to indicate their satisfaction with the snack bars in the gate area. Findings reveal that two in three (68%) consumers are very satisfied (a rating of “6” or “7”).

VERY SATISFIED ("6" OR "7")

68%

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED ("4" OR 5")

23%

NOT AT ALL SATISFIED ("1", "2", OR "3")

9%

YEAR-TO-DATE 2014

Leisure travelers are more likely to be very satisfied with the gate snack bars than business travelers.

TYPE OF TRAVEL YEAR

END 2009 (228)

%

YEAR END 2010 (176)

%

YEAR END 2011 (117)

%

YEAR END 2012 (168)

%

YEAR END 2013 (154)

%

YTD 2014 (117)

%

BUSINESS TRAVELERS

(31) %

LEISURE TRAVELERS

(80) %

COMBO (6)* %

VERY SATISFIED (“6,” OR “7”) [NET] 73 83 75 82 76 68 48 73 100 “7” RATING 44 50 32 45 40 36 23 41 33 “6” RATING 29 33 43 37 36 32 26 31 67

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED (“5,” OR “4”) [NET]

20 12 19 14 19 23 26 24 -

“5” RATING 14 9 14 12 14 14 13 15 - “4” RATING 6 3 5 2 5 9 13 9 -

DISSATISFIED (“1,” “2,” OR “3”) [NET] 7 5 6 4 5 9 26 4 - “3” RATING 3 2 3 1 2 3 10 1 - “2” RATING 3 2 2 1 2 3 10 1 - “1” RATING 1 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 - Yellow shading indicates a significant difference from previous year at the 95% confidence interval. Note: This question was added in August 2006. Blue shading indicates a significant difference from total study at the 95% confidence interval. *Caution: Small base.

10 “On the same ‘1’ to ‘7’ scale, how would you rate the new gate area snack bar?”


14

SATISFACTION WITH AIRPORT VENDORS11 % RATING A “6” OR “7”

Airport patrons were asked to use a “1” to “7” scale to indicate their satisfaction with various airport vendors. Findings reveal that airport patrons were most satisfied with the services provided by Delta, Avis, Budget and Vision (100%) in 2014. However, note many of the bases are extremely small.

33%

69%

69%

70%

74%

86%

92%

92%

93%

94%

94%

100%

100%

100%

100%DELTA

AVIS

BUDGET

VISION

SOUTHWEST

NATIONAL/ALAMO

HERTZ

ENTERPRISE

THOMAS GRILL

DUNKIN DONUTS

US AIRWAYS

ALLEGIANT AIR

UNITED EXPRESS

AMERICAN EAGLE

THRIFY

% RATING "6" OR "7" ON A "1" TO "7" SCALEYEAR-TO-DATE 2014

*Small bases.

11 “Please use the same ‘1’ to ‘7’ scale to indicate your satisfaction with each of the following airlines and rental cars that you

interacted with today.” Note: Respondents who refused to answer this question are excluded from the data.

15

SATISFACTION WITH AIRPORT VENDORS12 % RATING A “6” OR “7”

(CONTINUED) Satisfaction with the various vendors varies by whether a customer is a business or leisure traveler. Note that leisure travelers tend to be more satisfied in general than business travelers.

TYPE OF TRAVEL

2010

(1:406)* %

2011 (0:311)*

%

2012 (0:413)*

%

2013 (0:346)*

%

YTD 2014

(1:265)* %

BUSINESS TRAVELERS

(1:88)* %

LEISURE TRAVELERS

(0:169)* %

COMBO (0:8)*

%

DELTA (n=8) 80 91 100 100 100 100 100 -

AVIS (n=3) 85 83 78 78 100 100 100 -

VISION (n=1) N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 100 - -

BUDGET (n=3) 83 100 90 50 100 100 100 -

SOUTHWEST (N=155) N/A 97 98 98 94 97 93 100

NATIONAL/ALAMO (n=17) 87 83 100 75 94 100 91 100

HERTZ (n=15) 85 78 85 70 93 80 100 100

ENTERPRISE (n=12) - - 82 100 92 - 92 -

THOMAS GRILL (n=36) N/A N/A N/A N/A 92 83 93 -

DUNKIN DONUTS (n=7) N/A N/A N/A N/A 86 50 100 -

US AIRWAYS (n=175) 75 76 84 79 74 67 76 100

ALLEGIANT AIR (n=93) 89 94 92 84 70 83 69 50

UNITED EXPRESS (n=175)

72 74 79 82 69 67 72 50

AMERICAN EAGLE (n=87) 84 92 67 93 69 66 76 33

THRIFTY (n=3) 100 67 70 67 33 50 0 -

*Caution: Small base. N= # of total respondents answering question year-to-date.

12 “Please use the same ‘1’ to ‘7’ scale to indicate your satisfaction with each of the following airlines and rental cars that you

interacted with today.” Note: Respondents who refused to answer this question are excluded from the data.

16

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

17

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS13 Passengers and greeters were asked how the services at GSP International Airport could be improved to better meet their needs. Their most common suggestion in 2014 is to improve the availability of flights and to improve services. Note that most consumers (71%) had no suggestions.

71%

5%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

4%

6%

9%IMPROVEFLIGHTS/AIRLINES

MORE/BETTER SERVICES

MORE SIGNS

BETTER CUSTOMERSERVICES

BETTER BAGGAGEHANDLING

INCREASE PARKING

MORE/CLEANERRESTROOMS

LOWER PRICES

IMPROVE SECURITY

ADD COVERED WALKWAYS

CLEANER AIRPORT

OTHER

DON'T KNOW

YEAR-TO-DATE 2014

13 “How could the products and services at this airport be improved to better serve your needs?”

18

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS14 (CONTINUED)

When comparing 2nd quarter 2014 with 3rd quarter 2014, travelers are more likely to complain about flight cancellations and the need of improved signage this quarter than last quarter.

QUARTER

2009

(1200) %

2010 (1200)

%

2011 (1200)

%

2012 (1200)

%

2013 (1200)

%

YTD 2014 (900)

%

1st QTR 2014 (300)

%

2nd QTR 2014 (300)

%

3rd QTR 2014 (300)

%

FLIGHTS/AIRLINES [NET] 20 20 10 8 9 9 8 9 10 More direct flights 6 6 3 3 3 3 2 5 3 Fewer cancellations/delays 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 2 4 Cheaper flights 12 9 3 2 3 2 0 3 4 Have accurate flight information 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 - 1 More airline affiliation 1 2 0 0 0 1 - - 1 MORE/BETTER SERVICES [NET] 8 7 8 9 8 6 7 8 4 More food selection 6 6 6 6 7 5 6 5 3 More electrical outlets 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 Place to watch TV/movies 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 - Improve food quality 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - More smoking areas 0 0 - 1 0 0 - 0 0 More variety stores/services 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 - More entertainment in general 0 0 0 0 - - - - - Maintain facility better 0 0 - - - - - - - MORE SIGNS 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 2 6 SHUTTLE FROM PARKING - 0 2 3 3 3 0 4 4 BETTER CUSTOMER SERVICES [NET]

2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3

Need friendlier customer service 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 1 3 More professional customer service

0 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 -

Better/faster customer service 1 0 0 0 0 - - - - BETTER BAGGAGE HANDLING 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 INCREASE PARKING - - 0 4 3 1 0 1 1 ADD COVERED WALKWAYS 0 - - - - 0 0 1 - LOWER PRICES 4 4 4 4 2 1 0 0 1 Cheaper parking 3 3 3 3 1 0 0 - 1 Food prices too high 1 1 1 1 1 0 - 0 0 Lower prices 0 0 - 0 - - - - - IMPROVE SECURITY 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 - 1 MORE/CLEANER RESTROOMS 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 - 2 MORE/BETTER SEATING - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - ADD CURBSIDE CHECK-IN/SKY CAPS

0 - - 0 - 0 - - 0

LONGER RESTAURANT/BAR HOURS

0 0 - 0 0 - - - -

OTHER 5 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 DON’T KNOW 59 62 70 69 71 71 76 74 67 Yellow shading indicates a significant difference from the previous year at the 95% confidence interval. Blue shading indicates a significant difference from total study at the 95% confidence interval.


19


In 2014, leisure travelers are more likely than business travelers to request more availability of food selection.

TYPE OF TRAVEL

YTD 2014 (900)

%

BUSINESS

TRAVELERS (239)

%

LEISURE

TRAVELERS (546)

%

COMBO (25)*

%

FLIGHTS/AIRLINES [NET] 9 8 7 16 More direct flights 3 3 2 8 Fewer cancellations/delays 3 3 3 - Cheaper flights 2 1 1 4 Have accurate flight information 1 - 1 4 More airline affiliation - - - - MORE/BETTER SERVICES [NET] 6 6 6 4 More food selection 5 4 5 4 More electrical outlets 1 2 0 - Place to watch TV/movies 0 - 0 - Improve food quality 0 - 0 - More smoking areas 0 0 - - More variety stores/services 0 - 0 - More entertainment in general - - - - Maintain facility better - - - - MORE SIGNS 4 4 3 12 SHUTTLE FROM PARKING 3 2 3 8 BETTER CUSTOMER SERVICES [NET] 2 1 2 - Need friendlier customer service 2 0 2 - More professional customer service

0 0 - -

Better/faster customer service - - - - BETTER BAGGAGE HANDLING 1 0 1 4 MORE/CLEANER RESTROOMS 1 1 1 - INCREASE PARKING 1 - 1 - LOWER PRICES 1 - 1 4 Cheaper parking 0 - 0 - Food prices too high 0 - 0 4 Lower prices - - - - ADD COVERED WALKWAYS 0 - - 4 IMPROVE SECURITY 0 1 0 - MORE/BETTER SEATING 0 0 - - LONGER RESTAURANT/BAR HOURS - - - - ADD CURBSIDE CHECK-IN/SKY CAPS - - - - OTHER 2 1 2 - DON’T KNOW 71 74 74 48 Blue shading indicates a significant difference from total study at the 95% confidence interval. *Caution: Small base.


20


A sampling of airport patrons’ comments when asked how the GSP International Airport could better meet their needs follow.

Parking is too expensive. They need to get a free shuttle to the airport from the parking area. They need more outlets for phones and computers. I think they should add more food options. They need to have more food options after security. They need better signage to the baggage claim area. There should be more economy parking. They need to have fewer delays. I would like to see more direct flights. I would like to see more direct flights to Dallas. Update the monitors if there are delays. The customer service people could be friendlier. The staff needs to be friendlier. They need better signage especially to the baggage claim area. There is too much construction. There just seem to be a lot of delays out of this airport. I would like to see more healthy food options. I would like to see more updated airline monitors. The staff should smile more. They never seem to smile. The bathrooms could be cleaned up better. They really needed to be serviced. We need more signage when exiting the plane. They need to get their flights as cheap as Charlotte.


21


They need more direct flights. Parking is too expensive and limited. They should have a shuttle from the parking area. They need more staff especially in TSA. They need more plug-in outlets for computers. They need more signage as far as the food options go. I would like to see more healthy food options. Their pricing needs to be more competitive with Charlotte. They have cheaper flights. The signage should be better. I didn’t know they had a Dunkin Donuts. The customer service people at the restaurants need to be more friendly. I’d like more direct flights to San Francisco. The signage throughout the airport needs to be improved. I didn’t know they offered half the food options they do. There are too many delays in and out of this airport. The bathrooms could be cleaner. They should update the monitors when delays occur. I’d like to see cheaper and more direct flights.


22

FREE WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE18 Nearly two-thirds (61%) of airport patrons plan to use the airport’s free wireless Internet service.

PLAN TO USE FREE WRELESS SERVICE

61%

NOT USE SERVICE39%

YEAR-TO-DATE 2014

Business travelers are more likely to plan to use the free wireless Internet service available than leisure travelers.

TYPE OF TRAVEL

2009

(1200) %

2010 (1200)

%

2011 (1200)

%

2012 (1200)

%

2013 (1200)

%

YTD 2014 (900)

%

BUSINESS TRAVELERS

(239) %

LEISURE TRAVELERS

(546) %

COMBO (25)*

%

PLAN TO USE SERVICE 43 47 51 58 62 61 67 62 60

DO NOT PLAN TO USE SERVICE

57 53 49 42 38 39 33 38 40

Yellow shading indicates a significant difference from the previous year at the 95% confidence interval. Blue shading indicates a significant difference from total study at the 95% confidence interval.

18 “Have you or do you plan to use the free wireless internet service?”

23

GSP WEBSITE19 The majority (87%) of airport patrons have not visited the airport’s website.

VISITED THE WEB SITE13%

DID NOT VISIT THE WEB SITE

87%

YEAR-TO-DATE 2014

Business travelers are more likely than leisure travelers to have visited GSP’s website.

TYPE OF TRAVEL

2008

(1080) %

2009 (1079)

%

2010 (1080)

%

2011 (900)

%

2012 (1080)

%

2013 (1080)

%

YTD 2014 (810)

%

BUSINESS TRAVELERS

(239) %

LEISURE TRAVELERS

(546) %

COMBO (25)*

%

VISITED WEB SITE 16 22 17 16 16 12 13 17 12 8

HAVE NOT VISITED WEB SITE

84 78 83 84 84 88 87 83 88 92


19 “Have you visited the GSP airport website?”

24

FLIGHT RESERVATIONS VIA THE WEB SITE20 Consumers who claim to have visited GSP Airport’s web site were asked if they booked a flight through the site. Findings reveal that only one in ten (10%) website visitors have booked a flight through the website.

BOOKED A FLIGHT10%

DID NOT BOOK A FLIGHT

90%

YEAR-TO-DATE 2014

Business travelers are less likely to book a flight through the airport’s website than leisure travelers.

TYPE OF TRAVEL

2008 (181)

%

2009 (238)

%

2010 (184)

%

2011 (177)

%

2012 (169)

%

2013 (134)

%

YTD 2014 (107)

%

BUSINESS

TRAVELERS (41) %

LEISURE

TRAVELERS (64)*

%

COMBO (2)* %

BOOKED A FLIGHT THROUGH THE WEB SITE

19 15 24 23 14 19 10 7 13 -

HAVE NOT BOOKED A FLIGHT THROUGH WEB SITE

81 85 76 77 86 81 90 93 88 100

Yellow shading indicates a significant difference from the previous year at the 95% confidence interval. Blue shading indicates a significant difference from total study at the 95% confidence interval. *Caution: Small base.

20 “Have you booked a flight on the GSP airport web site?”

25

REASONS FOR NOT BOOKING THROUGH THE WEB SITE21 Respondents who have visited the GSP web site, but did not book their reservation through the site were asked to explain why they did not book a flight through the website. The most common explanation is that they were unaware they were able to do so.

2%

36%

61%DIDN'T KNOW YOU COULDBUY ONLINE

ALREADY PURCHASEDTICKET

DON'T KNOW

YEAR-TO-DATE 2014

*Note: N=96

21 “Why not? Why didn’t you book your flight through the GSP web site?”

26

FLIGHT RESERVATION BOOKING METHODS22 Passengers were asked how they booked their flight today. Findings reveal that the most common method for booking a flight is through the airline’s website or a travel agent.

3%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

4%

7%

22%

57%AIRLINE WEBSITE

TRAVEL AGENT

EXPEDIA.COM

ORBITZ.COM

TRAVELOCITY

AIRLINE - PHONE

PRICELINE

CHEAPTICKETS

GSP WEBSITE

AMERICAN EXPRESS

KAYAK

HOTWIRE

OTHER

DON'T KNOW

YEAR-TO-DATE 2014

Business travelers are more likely than leisure travelers to book their reservations through a travel agent.

TYPE OF TRAVEL

2009

(1080) %

2010 (1080)

%

2011 (1080)

%

2012 (1080)

%

2013 (1080)

%

YTD 2014 (810)

%

BUSINESS

TRAVELERS (239)

%

LEISURE

TRAVELERS (546)

%

COMBO (25)*

%

AIRLINE WEBSITE 37 38 48 55 56 57 34 67 56 TRAVEL AGENT 27 31 33 25 24 22 52 9 20 EXPEDIA.COM 9 8 5 6 7 7 3 9 12 ORBITZ.COM 4 4 3 2 2 4 4 3 4 TRAVELOCITY 4 4 3 2 2 2 3 2 4 AIRLINE – PHONE 4 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 - PRICELINE.COM 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 CHEAPTICKETS 3 1 1 0 1 1 - 1 - GSP WEB SITE 1 2 1 0 - 0 - 0 - KAYAK - - - 1 1 0 1 0 - HOTWIRE - - 0 1 0 0 - 0 - AMERICAN EXPRESS - - - 0 1 0 - 0 - TICKET COUNTER - 1 0 0 0 - - - - OTHER 2 1 1 0 0 0 - 0 - DON’T KNOW 5 3 2 3 3 3 2 4 - Yellow shading indicates a significant difference from the previous year at the 95% confidence interval. Blue shading indicates a significant difference from total study at the 95% confidence interval. 22 “How did you book your flight today?”

27

ORIGINATION23 Passengers who live in the Greenville/Spartanburg area were asked how many flights they originated from GSP International, Atlanta Hartsfield International and Charlotte-Douglas International Airport in the past year. As expected, local passengers originated most of their flights from GSP International Airport.

4.4

5.8

8.7GSP

CHARLOTTE-DOUGLAS

ATLANTA HARTSFIELD

YEAR-TO-DATE 2014MEAN NUMBER OF FLIGHTS

As expected, the mean number of flights booked at GSP International Airport is highest among business travelers.

TYPE OF TRAVEL

2009

MEAN

2010 MEAN

2011 MEAN

2012 MEAN

2013 MEAN

YTD 2014

MEAN

BUSINESS

TRAVELERS MEAN

LEISURE

TRAVELERS MEAN

COMBO MEAN

GSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT [N=287]

7.4 7.8 10.9 6.2 8.6 8.7 15.2 5.6 7.2

CHARLOTTE-DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT [N=83]

5.7 3.0 6.4 4.5 6.6 5.8 9.5 2.6 2.7

ATLANTA HARTSFIELD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT [N=23]

3.6 4.2 7.4 4.3 3.8 4.34 6.7 2.5 0.0

*Caution: Small base.

23 “During the past year, about how many flights did you originate from…”

28

REASONS FOR FLIGHT ORIGINATION FROM ATLANTA24 Passengers’ most common reasons for originating flights from Atlanta is that Hartsfield International has cheaper flights than GSP, while 58% prefer Hartsfield because the airport has more direct flights.

4%

4%

58%

63%PRICE

MORE DIRECT FLIGHTS

FLIGHT AVAILABILITY

SOMEONE ELSE BOOKED

YEAR-TO-DATE 2014

TYPE OF TRAVEL

2007 (85) %

2008 (100)

%

2009 (80) %

2010 (54) %

2011 (62) %

2012 (57) %

2013 (50) %

YTD 2014 (24) %

PRICE 38 67 83 72 71 75 66 63

MORE DIRECT FLIGHTS 22 24 29 31 35 58 46 58

FLIGHT AVAILABILITY 13 16 5 2 5 5 6 4

SOMEONE ELSE BOOKED 20 4 - 2 - 4 2 4

FAMILY/BUSINESS IN AREA 25 7 8 7 10 2 6 -

FEWER CANCELED FLIGHTS 4 3 3 2 3 2 2 -

AIRLINE PREFERENCE 5 1 - 2 2 - - -

DON’T KNOW 6 3 - 2 3 - - -

Note: This question was added in June 2007. *Caution: Small base.

24 “Why did you originate your trip out of Atlanta instead of GSP International?”

29

REASONS FOR FLIGHT ORIGINATION FROM CHARLOTTE25 Passengers’ most common reason for originating flights from Charlotte instead of GSP is cheaper fares and having more direct flights.

1%

1%

2%

7%

8%

53%

69%PRICE

MORE DIRECT FLIGHTS

FLIGHT AVAILABILITY

FEWER CANCELED FLIGHTS

SOMEONE ELSE BOOKED

FAMILY/BUSINESS IN AREA

DON'T KNOW

YEAR-TO-DATE 2014

TYPE OF TRAVEL

2007 (54) %

2008 (143)

%

2009 (171)

%

2010 (172)

%

2011 (180)

%

2012 (146)

%

2013 (144)

%

YTD 2014 (83) %

PRICE 35 74 80 87 84 77 78 69

MORE DIRECT FLIGHTS 20 37 34 35 41 50 44 53

FLIGHT AVAILABILITY 9 11 4 6 3 2 6 8

FEWER CANCELED FLIGHTS 4 6 1 1 6 1 1 7

SOMEONE ELSE BOOKED 24 3 2 1 2 5 1 2

FAMILY/BUSINESS IN ARE 24 3 2 1 2 4 1 1

AIRLINE PREFERENCE 2 1 1 1 - - 1 -

OTHER - 1 - 1 - - - -

DON’T KNOW 2 1 1 1 - - 1 1

Note: This question was added in June 2007. *Caution: Small base.

25 “Why did you originate your trip out of Charlotte instead of GSP International?” Added in June 2007.

30

PREFERRED ORIGINATION26 When asked which of the three airports they would prefer to originate their air travel, the vast majority (96%) of travelers say they prefer to originate their flight out of GSP.

GSP96%

ATLANTA HARTSFIELD

1% CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS

2%

DOESN'T MATTER

1%

YEAR-TO-DATE 2014

Leisure passengers are slightly more likely than business passengers to prefer to originate their travel from GSP International Airport.

TYPE OF TRAVEL

2008 (586)

%

2009 (574)

%

2010 (569)

%

2011 (584)

%

2012 (566)

%

2013 (545)

%

YTD 2014 (384)

%

BUSINESS

TRAVELERS (118)

%

LEISURE

TRAVELERS (174)

%

COMBO (13)*

%

GSP INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

79 90 94 93 95 97 96 95 97 100

CHARLOTTE-DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

3 5 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 -

ATLANTA-HARTSFIELD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 -

DOESN’T MATTER 16 4 2 2 1 2 1 3 - -

Yellow shading indicates a significant difference from the previous year at the 95% confidence interval. *Caution: Small base.

26 “Which of the following airports do you prefer to originate your air travel?”

31

RESPONDENT PROFILE

32

RESPONDENT PROFILE The following table compares respondents’ demographics by quarter.

YR

END 2008

(1200) %

YR END 2009

(1200) %

YR END 2010

(1200) %

YR END 2011

(1200) %

YR END 2012

(1200) %

YR END 2013

(1200) %

YTD 2014 (900)

%

1st QTR 2013 (300)

%

2nd QTR 2013 (300)

%

3rd QTR 2013 (300)

% AGE

18 TO 24 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 11 6 7

25 TO 44 35 31 30 25 28 31 29 33 28 25

45 TO 64 44 44 46 57 56 54 56 49 58 61

65+ 12 16 16 10 8 8 7 7 8 7

INCOME

UNDER $35,000 13 15 8 10 11 11 10 10 9 12

$35,000 TO $74,999 35 26 32 38 29 23 27 25 27 29

$75,000+ 52 59 60 52 60 66 63 65 63 60

GENDER

MALE 51 48 52 50 50 48 46 46 47 44

FEMALE 49 52 48 50 50 52 54 54 53 56


33

QUESTIONNAIRE

1

FINISH TIME: __ __ : __ __ INTERVIEW:__ __ __ __ [1:4] START TIME: __ __ : __ __ STUDY: __ __ __ __ [5:8] MINUTES: __ __ DATE: __ __/ __ __ [9:12]

GREENVILLE SPARTANBURG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT INTERCEPTS

Revised May 16, 2008

DAY OF WEEK [15:16] Monday ....................................................................... 01

TIME OF DAY [13:14] Tuesday…. .................................................................. 02 Wednesday ................................................................. 03 7a.m. to 10 a.m. ................................. 01 Thursday ..................................................................... 04 10:01 a.m. to 1 p.m. ........................... 02 Friday .......................................................................... 05 1:01 p.m. to 4 p.m. ............................. 03 Saturday ...................................................................... 06 4;01 p.m. to 7 p.m. ............................. 04 Sunday ........................................................................ 07 7:01 p.m. to 10 p.m. ........................... 05

DATA [17:21] Hello. I am ____________________with Research Incorporated, a market research firm. We’re conducting a study about the services here at the Greenville Spartanburg International Airport, and I wonder if you’d like to participate in a brief interview. Thank you. 1. Why did you come to the airport today? Did you come …

[22:23] As an airline passenger..................................................................................................... 01 To meet, greet or send off an airline passenger .............................................................. 02

2. If you are traveling today, is this trip mainly for …

***[32:33]*** Business Travel ................................................................................................................. 01 Leisure/Personal Travel .................. ................................................................................. 02 A mix of business and leisure travel ................................................................................. 03

3. Are you (the person you are meeting/greeting/sending off) …

[24:25] Beginning your/their trip today in Greenville ..................................................................... 01 Ending your/their trip today in Greenville .......................................................................... 02 4. About how many round trips did you take during the past year?

[26:27] 1 to 2 ................................................................................................................................. 01 3 to 4 ................................................................................................................................. 02 5 to 9 ................................................................................................................................. 03 More than 10 ..................................................................................................................... 04 NONE ................................................................................................................................ 98 5. About what percentage of those round trips that you took during the past year originated from the

Greenville Spartanburg International Airport? [RECORD THREE-DIGIT NUMBER.] ......................................................................................................... ____ ____ ___% [28:30]

2


6. Now, please indicate your overall satisfaction with the Greenville Spartanburg International Airport

by using a “1” to “7” scale. Let a “7” indicate you are very satisfied with the airport and a “1” to indicate you are not satisfied at all. You can use any number in between. [RECORD ONE-DIGIT RATING. DON’T KNOW = “9.”]

...................................................................................................................... _________ [31] 7. Please use the same “1” to “7” scale to indicate your satisfaction with the airport in the following

areas. [RECORD ONE-DIGIT RATING. DON’T KNOW = “9.”]

RATING

Friendliness of airport employees [40]

Speed of service from airport employees [41]

Signage [42]

Cleanliness [43]

Landscaping [44]

Security checkpoint at the parking deck [45]

Security checkpoint at the gates [46]

Parking [47]

Ground Transportation (Limousine & Taxicab) [48]

Welcome/Information Center [49]

Restaurant (Windows) [50]

Skycaps [51]

DATA ONLY

8. Did you eat in the restaurant or snack bar on the second floor today?

*[100:103]* Restaurant ......................................................................................................................... 01 Snack Bar .......................................................................................................................... 02 NEITHER .......................................................................................................................... 99

3


[SKIP IF A GREETER] 9. Now please use the same “1” to “7” scale to rate your satisfaction with each of the following

services that you interacted with today. [RECORD ONE-DIGIT RATING. DON’T KNOW = “9.”]

RATING

Thomas Grill [100]

Dunkin Donuts [101]

Southwest [103]

Vision [104]

Enterprise [105]

American Eagle [106]

Continental [107]

Delta [108]

Northwest [109]

United Express [110]

US Airways [111]

Hertz [112]

Thrifty [113]

Budget [114]

National/Alamo [115]

Avis [116]

Hudson News [117]

Allegiant Air [118]

DATA ONLY

[ASK Q.10 & Q.11 TO PASSENGERS ONLY] 10. Using the same “1” to “7” scale, how would you rate the new gate area snack bars? ....................................................................................................................._________ [119] 11. Have you eaten or purchased food from the new gate area snack bars?

[120] Yes ...................................................................................................................................... 1 No ........................................................................................................................................ 2 [ASK EVERYONE] 12. How could the services at this airport be improved to better serve your needs? [PROBE.

RECORD RESPONSE VERBATIM.] **[60:77]**

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

4


13. Have you used or do you plan to use the free wireless internet service now available? [78:79]

YES ................................................................................................................................... 01 NO ........................................................... ......................................................................... 02 [SKIP TO Q.24 IF A GREETER]

14. Have you visited the GSP airport’s website? **[122:123]**

YES ................................................................................................................................... 01 NO ........................................................... [SKIP TO Q.18] ................................................ 02

15. Have you booked a flight on the GSP airport website? [124:125]

YES ......................................................... [SKIP TO Q.17] ................................................ 01 NO ..................................................................................................................................... 02 [IF NO IN Q.15 ASK Q.16, THEN SKIP TO Q.18]

16. Why not? [PROBE. RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE.] [126:135]

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

17. Using the same “1” to “7” scale, where a “7” is the highest rating you can give and a “1” is the lowest, how would you rate your experience booking your flight on the GSP website?

_____ [136] 18. How did you book your flight today?

[137:138] Travel agent ...................................................................................................................... 01 Airline reservations - telephone ........................................................................................ 02 Airline website ................................................................................................................... 03 Expedia.com ..................................................................................................................... 04 CheapTickets .................................................................................................................... 05 Other: ___________________ ........................................................................................ 06 Don’t know ........................................................................................................................ 99 19. Do you live in the Greenville/Spartanburg area?

[139:140] Yes .................................................................................................................................... 01 No ............................................................ [SKIP TO Q.25] ................................................ 02

5


20. During the past year, about how many flights did you originated from …

Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport .............................................................. ___ [150:152] Charlotte-Douglas International Airport .............................................................. ___ [153:155] GSP International Airport ................................................................................... ___ [156:158] [IF FLEW OUT OF ATLANTA IN Q. 20, ASK:] 21. Why did you originate your trip out of Atlanta instead of GSP International? [DO NOT READ,

RECORD POSITIVE RESPONSES.] [159:168]

Price or lowest faire ........................................................................................................... 01 Airline preference .............................................................................................................. 02 Flight availability/# of flights per day ................................................................................. 03 Family/business in area .................................................................................................... 04 Fewer cancelled flights...................................................................................................... 05 More direct flights/no stop or layover ................................................................................ 06 Someone else booked flight .............................................................................................. 07 Other: ___________ ......................................................................................................... 08 Don’t know ........................................................................................................................ 99 [IF FLEW OUT OF CHARLOTTE IN Q. 20, ASK:] 22. Why did you originate your trip out of Charlotte instead of GSP International? [DO NOT READ,

RECORD POSITIVE RESPONSES.]

[169:178] Price or lowest faire ........................................................................................................... 01 Airline preference .............................................................................................................. 02 Flight availability/# of flights per day ................................................................................. 03 Family/business in area .................................................................................................... 04 Fewer cancelled flights...................................................................................................... 05 More direct flights/no stop or layover ................................................................................ 06 Someone else booked flight .............................................................................................. 07 Other: ___________ ......................................................................................................... 08 Don’t know ........................................................................................................................ 99

23. Which of the following airports do you PREFER to originate your air travel? [179:184]

GSP International Airport .................................................................................................. 01 Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport ............................................................................. 02 Charlotte-Douglas International Airport ............................................................................. 03 [DO NOT READ.] Doesn’t matter ...................................................................................... 04 Now, a few questions for classification purposes only. 24. What zip code do you live in? ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ***[142:146]***

6


25. Please stop me when I read your age group. [READ LIST]

***[80:81]*** 18 to 24 ........................................... ................................................................................. 01

25 to 44 ........................................... ................................................................................. 02 45 to 54 ........................................... ................................................................................. 03

55 to 64 ........................................... ................................................................................. 04 65 to 74 ........................................... ................................................................................. 05

75 and older ................................... ................................................................................. 06 [DO NOT READ] REFUSED .......... ................................................................................. 99

26. Please stop me when I read the range that best describes your total household income for the past

year. Before taxes and other deductions was it...[READ LIST] [82:83]

Under $25,000 ................................ ................................................................................. 01 $25,000 to $34,999 ......................... ................................................................................. 02 $35,000 to $49,999 ......................... ................................................................................. 03 $50,000 to $74,999 ......................... ................................................................................. 04 $75,000 to $99,999 ......................... ................................................................................. 05 More than $100,000 ........................ ................................................................................. 06 [DO NOT ASK] REFUSED ............. ................................................................................. 99

27. Gender

[84:85] Male................................................. ................................................................................. 01 Female ............................................ ................................................................................. 02

DATA [86:200] Thank you very much for your time. The Greenville Spartanburg International Airport values your opinion. May I have your name, address and phone number in the event my supervisor would like to verify the interview. NAME _______________________________________ PHONE #_______________________

agenda greenville-spartanburg airport commission regular … · 2017-06-05 · agenda ....

Documents