Massport: Government that works
fifty years ago, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts launched a bold experiment in bringing business principles to government when it entrusted its most important transportation facilities to a new agency, the Massachusetts Port Authority. Created by the Legislature in 1956 in response to concern among business, civic, and labor leaders that the Commonwealth’s deteriorating air and sea facilities were jeopardizing the state’s economic future, Massport formally took charge in 1959 of Boston Logan International Airport, the Port of Boston’s public terminals, the Tobin Memorial Bridge, and, in 1974, Hanscom Field.
Today, community activists, business leaders, journalists, and public officials are still debating the nature and responsibilities of this unique “quasi-public” entity, which is not quite a business and not quite a state agency. Just recently the Boston Globe asserted that Massport takes great “pride” in its “decidedly different philosophy” of managing its facilities more like a business than a state agency. Even after 50 years the Globe still doesn’t get it: Running Massport like a business isn’t our “philosophy,” it’s our mandate.
The current transportation secretary, James Aloisi, has been quoted as criticizing Massport officials for protecting their “cozy little worlds” and resisting change that would reduce the authority’s independence in favor of transportation reform.
I’ve been chairman of Massport for seven years and a professor at Harvard Business School for more than 25. I am convinced that Massport’s independent, business model mandate makes sense. It is less about politics and more about getting the job done with zero dollars from the state’s general fund. It’s why David Cush, president and chief executive of Virgin America, was able to say at that airline’s launch of service from Boston to the West Coast that “Logan was able to do in six days what we had been trying to do for six months in Chicago.” We moved quickly while O’Hare stalled, and the New England economy will benefit as a result. It’s why, when Gov. Patrick approached us about running transportation assets and absorbing Big Dig debt, we told him the truth: Tunnel tolls would have to increase to $15 by 2025. No gimmicks. No campaign slogans. Just facts.
By putting its critical transportation infrastructure in the hands of a public agency built on market principles, the Massachusetts Legislature hoped to combine the best of two worlds: business efficiency and public accountability. To achieve this mission, Massport was accorded political independence through a seven-member board appointed to staggered seven-year terms by the governor. Massport was given the power to assess rents, fees, and tolls, and to issue revenue bonds, so it would not be a hostage to the ups and downs of the state’s fiscal condition and changing public moods. By putting these assets under a single agency with the financial and political independence to support them, Massachusetts hoped to ease the burden on taxpayers, recover its past airport and seaport investments, and pass responsibility for these critical facilities to an organization with the business and financial wherewithal to sustain itself and compete with other airports and seaports for global business.
The approach has worked remarkably well. Massport is the state’s only transportation entity that has a solid balance sheet and maintains its properties in good condition. Over the last 15 years, we have spent $4.4 billion improving the airport, have created the world’s first LEED-certified “green” airline terminal, and have contributed to the community, all without any tax support or subsidies from the Commonwealth.
As a business, we monitor cash flow closely. But sometimes, we make mistakes. This fiscal year, our parking revenue was down $4.3 million in the first eight months. We cut costs, we froze hiring, and we are looking at more cuts, but we also needed to raise revenue. We acted as a business, and we went ahead and raised hourly parking rates. But in this case, we should have acted more like a public agency and allowed more time for public input.
Still, despite a hiccup or two, we have maintained a strong AA bond rating from the various bond rating agencies. This helps lower Massport borrowing costs and produces millions of dollars in savings for its customers and aviation partners.
Most important, we have enhanced security, enabling us to regain the public’s trust after 9/11 and making the agency a national leader in transportation security. When I arrived at Massport in 2002, the determination of board members and employees to make security at Logan (and at all Massport facilities) second-to-none was obvious. That year, the board committed to spending $150 million to build the nation’s first in-line checked baggage explosive detection screening system, even before we had any assurance of federal reimbursement. And Logan was the only major airport in the nation to meet the initial federal deadline for the completion of such a system.
Security considerations remain paramount. Logan begins each day with an 8:30 a.m. briefing that brings together every agency and organization with security responsibilities to go over the latest intelligence and threat information. Logan has also developed a behavior pattern recognition surveillance program that is a model for other airports around the country. We also created a unique Security Center of Excellence that uses Massport facilities as laboratories to test promising new security technologies.
Massport has been called a “power unto itself” that turns a deaf ear to nearby communities. In fact, Massport strives to be a good corporate citizen. We have spent $150 million soundproofing homes, and another $281 million in payments in lieu of taxes to local governments over the last 25 years. During that period, Boston received $255 million from Massport, more than all the payments from the city’s colleges and universities combined.
And we’ve done it all with an eye on the consumer.
The current economic recession presents Massport with a grave challenge. With 2009 passenger traffic continuing to fall, we continue to work with our airline tenant partners to further trim our costs. Our objective is to ensure that the per-passenger and per-flight fees we charge the airlines are held as close to constant as possible, even as we increase customer service.
Our airport sits on about 1,700 acres of land. We are looking to the future with projects like a consolidated rental car facility — needed so our roadways will not be crowded with rental car company buses in the years ahead. As our terminal space reaches capacity, we have already identified areas on the airport where new gates might be built. The first choice is expanding Terminal E to the west.
Like any sound financial portfolio, Massport derives its strength from diversification. Today, Logan is served by 46 air carriers that fly to 70 domestic and 31 international destinations. No single carrier dominates the market. Last year, the new airline produced by the Delta/ Northwest merger topped our list, accounting for 21
percent of Logan’s passengers. American Airlines, US Airways, and JetBlue are close behind, each with between 14 percent and 16 percent of the market.
At Logan, when one airline leaves or reduces service, there are others waiting to take its place. That’s because Boston is a large, prosperous, travel-intensive market that’s a great place to do business for any carrier that serves it. And it is because Massport makes sure that, whenever airlines want to do business in Boston, there is space at Logan to accommodate them.Through its 50-year history, Massport has experienced highs and lows. But Massport today mirrors the expectations of its founders: an independent, publicly accountable agency that runs like a business. We are an agency that puts the customer first, and, in so doing, connects New England with the rest of the world. Beacon Hill should make sure it remains that way.
John A. Quelch is chairman of the Massport Board and is the Lincoln Filene Professor of Business Administration and senior associate dean at Harvard Business School.