Asset-Light Revenue Models Replace Traditional Real Estate Leasing in Vertiport Infrastructure Deals

Written by:

Heather Hook

Date:

08 May 2026

KeyCrew Studio

Share

Share via Facebook

Share via Linkedin

Share via X

Copy to clipboard

Commercial real estate owners accustomed to straightforward lease structures are encountering a fundamentally different partnership model as vertiport developers compete for site access. The emerging standard: asset-light revenue-sharing agreements where property owners contribute land access while developers arrange capital, equipment, and operations in exchange for shared revenue from multiple income streams.

Lisa Wright, founder of Landings, has structured her company’s entire network strategy around this asset-light approach, avoiding property acquisition or traditional leasing in favor of revenue-sharing partnerships that distribute risk and reward across multiple parties.

“We don’t purchase land and we don’t do traditional leases,” Wright explained. “We secure site options, bring in capital partners and equipment providers, build the infrastructure, and share revenue with the landowner once operations begin.”

The model represents a significant departure from traditional infrastructure real estate transactions, creating both opportunities and complexities that property owners must understand before entering partnerships.

Why Traditional Leasing Doesn’t Work for Vertiports

Standard commercial real estate leasing assumes the tenant knows their space requirements, operational costs, and revenue potential with reasonable certainty. A warehouse tenant can project square footage needs, estimate operational expenses, and calculate lease payments they can sustain. A retail tenant understands customer traffic patterns and revenue per square foot with historical data.

Vertiport operations lack these certainties. Traffic projections depend on aircraft certification timing, regional adoption rates, competing site locations, and use case development that won’t clarify until operations begin. Equipment costs vary based on charging technology choices, energy infrastructure approaches, and multimodal capabilities. Revenue potential depends on pricing models, traffic mix, and competitive dynamics that remain largely theoretical.

Traditional fixed-rent leases expose either the landlord or tenant to unacceptable risk. High fixed rents protect landlords but could bankrupt tenants if traffic projections prove optimistic. Low fixed rents protect tenants but leave landlords forgoing revenue if operations exceed expectations.

Revenue-sharing structures align incentives by tying landlord compensation to operational success. If vertiport traffic exceeds projections, both parties benefit proportionally. If traffic disappoints, both parties share the downside rather than one party bearing full risk.

How Asset-Light Revenue Sharing Actually Works

Wright’s model separates site control from capital deployment and operational execution. Landings secures site options from property owners, typically through agreements granting exclusive development rights for defined periods (often 12-24 months) while infrastructure partnerships are structured and capital is raised.

During the option period, Landings arranges partnerships with solar developers, battery system providers, charging equipment manufacturers, and operations partners. These entities contribute capital and equipment in exchange for revenue shares from their respective income streams.

Once partnerships are finalized and infrastructure is installed, operations begin and revenue flows from multiple sources: aircraft landing and charging fees, heavy cargo drone operations, light delivery drone traffic, ground vehicle charging (delivery trucks, school buses, municipal fleets), and potentially excess energy sales back to the grid from solar generation.

The property owner receives a negotiated percentage of total site revenue. The exact percentage depends on factors including property characteristics, alternative use values, infrastructure contributions from the owner, and competitive dynamics in the local market. Wright indicated typical landowner revenue shares range from 15-30% of gross site revenue, though structures vary significantly based on deal-specific factors.

Multimodal Revenue Streams Complicate and Enhance Deals

The asset-light model’s complexity stems partly from multiple revenue streams requiring different partnership structures. Aircraft operations generate landing fees and charging revenue. Drone operations create per-transaction fees. Ground vehicle charging produces per-kilowatt-hour revenue. Excess solar generation sold to the grid creates wholesale power sales income.

Each revenue stream may involve different partners with different contractual terms. Solar developers might structure 20-year power purchase agreements. Charging equipment providers might use revenue-sharing or equipment lease models. Aircraft operators might negotiate usage agreements with volume discounts. Ground fleet charging might operate on market-rate per-kilowatt pricing.

Wright’s team must structure these partnerships to ensure the overall economics work for all parties while maintaining operational flexibility as the market evolves. “We’re essentially creating mini infrastructure partnerships at each site,” Wright noted. “The property owner gets a share of everything, but we need to make sure each individual partnership makes sense financially.”

The complexity creates higher transaction costs than traditional leases. Legal structuring, financial modeling, and partnership negotiations take months rather than weeks. But the resulting arrangements distribute risk more equitably and create upside potential that fixed leases can’t match.

Why Property Owners Are Accepting This Model

Commercial real estate owners typically prefer the certainty of fixed-rent leases to revenue-sharing arrangements with speculative income. Yet vertiport deals are moving forward on asset-light terms because the alternative is no deal at all.

Developers can’t commit to fixed rents that protect landlords when traffic and revenue remain uncertain. The capital required for fixed-rent commitments would exhaust developer resources on lease obligations rather than infrastructure buildout. The model simply doesn’t work financially for either party under traditional structures.

Asset-light revenue sharing makes deals possible by aligning incentives and distributing risk. Property owners gain exposure to upside potential in exchange for accepting downside risk. For rural properties with limited alternative high-value uses, the risk-reward calculation proves attractive.

Wright’s approach also positions property owners as infrastructure partners rather than passive landlords. Owners who support community engagement, facilitate permitting, and contribute to project success can negotiate higher revenue shares in recognition of their value-add beyond simple land access.

The model appeals particularly to property owners who view vertiport infrastructure as long-term strategic positioning rather than short-term income generation. As advanced air mobility matures and traffic volume increases, revenue-sharing arrangements provide proportional benefit growth that fixed leases don’t capture.

Deal Structure Variations and Negotiation Points

While revenue sharing forms the core structure, specific deal terms vary significantly based on property characteristics and owner preferences. Some property owners prefer lower revenue shares with guaranteed minimum payments protecting against zero-revenue scenarios. Others accept pure revenue sharing with no guarantees in exchange for higher percentage allocations.

Infrastructure contributions from property owners affect revenue shares. Owners who provide existing buildings for equipment housing, or who fund site preparation work, typically negotiate higher revenue percentages than owners providing raw land only.

Exit provisions represent critical negotiation points. What happens if the vertiport fails to achieve minimum traffic thresholds? How long must operations continue before either party can terminate? What happens to installed infrastructure if operations cease? These questions require detailed contractual provisions that protect both parties’ interests.

Wright noted that deal structures continue evolving as the industry matures. “We’re still learning what works and what doesn’t,” she explained. “Every deal teaches us something about how to structure the next one better.”

What This Means for Commercial Real Estate Strategy

The asset-light revenue-sharing model emerging in vertiport development may signal broader shifts in how infrastructure real estate transactions are structured. Traditional fixed-rent leases work well for established use cases with predictable economics. Emerging technologies with uncertain demand and evolving business models require more flexible arrangements that distribute risk and reward.

Property owners evaluating vertiport partnerships should approach these deals with different analytical frameworks than traditional leasing decisions. Questions to address include: What revenue shares are other comparable properties achieving? What minimum payment protections are available? How do different traffic scenarios affect income projections? What happens if operations underperform or cease entirely?

The deals require more sophisticated financial modeling than standard lease analysis but offer potential returns that fixed rents can’t match if operations succeed. For property owners willing to accept uncertainty in exchange for upside participation, asset-light revenue sharing provides access to infrastructure opportunities that traditional leasing structures would preclude.

The vertiport infrastructure wave represents early testing ground for these partnership models. As advanced air mobility matures and revenue patterns stabilize, deal structures may evolve toward hybrid approaches combining minimum guarantees with upside sharing. But for now, pure revenue-sharing arrangements dominate because they’re the only structure that makes deals feasible for both developers and property owners in a market still defining itself.

About Landings

Landings is building North America’s first comprehensive network of vertiport landing and charging infrastructure for electric aircraft, with a planned network of 2,000+ rural locations. Founded by architect and energy management expert Lisa Wright, the company takes an infrastructure-first, asset-light approach through revenue-sharing partnerships with commercial property owners. Learn more at landings.co/real-estate.

This article is based on information provided by the expert source cited above. It is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or real estate advice. Readers should conduct their own research and consult qualified professionals before making any real estate or financial decisions.