Pollnow v. Wittman Regional Airport -- No. 13-95-33
Record of Decision (05/23/1997) [Determination No.28].
Author:
Bennett, David L., Director
Complainant(s):
Pollnow, Gilbert F.|Sosnoksi, Carl, Jr.
Respondent(s):
Wittman Regional Airport
Airport(s):
Wittman Regional Airport (OSH)
Holding:
Dismissing complaint.
Abstract:
Complainants, Gilbert F. Pollnow and Carl Sosnoski, Jr. filed a complaint against Respondent Wittman Regional Airport, alleging that Respondent violated (1) Grant Assurance 23, by entering into a ground lease and use agreement with the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA); (2) Grant Assurance 22, by charging EAA a fraction of the rental fees it charged other FBOs; (3) Grant Assurance 24, by charging EAA a fraction of the cost needed to operate the Airport; and (4) Grant Assurance 29, by not showing private taxiway/aprons connecting the Airport to several private hangars on the Exhibit A to grant applications. The Director found Respondent not in violation.|Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23):|Respondent's lease with EAA, which granted it exclusive use to certain Airport property, did not grant EAA an impermissible exclusive right where there was no evidence that EAA's use of the facilities limited the usefulness of the Airport and/or deprived the using public of the benefits of competitive enterprise. (p. 14).|Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22):|"In cases where an airport proprietor does not employ a cost-based methodology to establish fees, the FAA considers the prohibition on unjust discrimination to be satisfied if the airport proprietor applies a consistent methodology in establishing fees for comparable aeronautical users." (p. 15).|Respondent was not in violation of Grant Assurance 22 due to the rates it was charging EAA under its lease where (1) Complainants provided no evidence that EAA and other aeronautical users referred to in the Complaint made the same or similar use of the Airport, or that distinctions made between them were unreasonable; and (2) Complainants provided no evidence to show that Respondent inconsistently applied the County Ordinance which established the rental fees at the Airport. (p. 15).|Fee and Rental Structure (Grant Assurance 24):|Where market conditions do not permit an airport proprietor to establish fees that are sufficiently high to recover aeronautical costs and sufficiently low to attract and retain commercial aeronautical services, a proprietor's decision to charge rates that are below those needed to achieve self-sustainability in order to assure that services are provided to the public is not inherently inconsistent with the obligation to make the airport as self-sustaining as possible. (p. 17).|"FAA considers direct negotiations with airport users a reasonable method to determine fees for aeronautical services and facilities other than the airfield." (p. 18).|Respondent was not in violation of Grant Assurance 24 for charging EAA less than the cost needed to operate the Airport where there was no evidence that Respondent inconsistently applied its methodology for establishing rates for comparable facilities. (p. 18).|Airport Layout Plan (Grant Assurance 29):|Respondent was not in violation of Grant Assurance 29 for failing to include a taxiway on its Airport Layout Plan where the taxiway at issue was not on Airport property. (pp. 19-20).
Index Terms:
Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23)|Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22)|Fee and Rental Structure (Grant Assurance 24)|Self-sustainability|Airport Layout Plan (Grant Assurance 29)|Unjust economic discrimination|Exclusive use|Fixed-base operator (FBO) agreement|Cost-based methodology