Aerodynamics of Reading, Inc. v. Reading Reg'l Airport Auth. -- No. 16-00-03
Final Decision and Order (07/23/2001) [Determination No.87].
Lexis Cite:
2001 FAA LEXIS 556
Westlaw Cite:
2001 WL 1085346
Author:
Woodward, Woodie, Acting Associate Administrator for Airports
Author Title:
Acting Associate Administrator for Airports
Complainant(s):
Aerodynamics of Reading, Inc.
Respondent(s):
Reading (Pa.) Regional Airport Authority
Airport(s):
Reading Regional Airport (RDG)
Holding:
Affirming Director's Determination of Dec. 22, 2000. See Determination No. 77.
Abstract:
In the original complaint, Complainant FBO alleged that Respondent, Reading Regional Airport Authority, sponsor of the Reading Regional Airport, was in violation of Grant Assurance 22(a) and (c) and Grant Assurance 24 by (1) unreasonably discriminating between the rents charged the Complainant and those charged to other FBOs; (2) requiring a substantial security deposit from Complainant but not from other FBOs or tenants; (3) engaging in discriminatory "bidding" for available hangars without notice or opportunity to bid for other parties; and (4) charging rents that resulted in substantial surplus that were not required for operation, nor re-invested in the Airport. The Director found Respondent not to be in violation of either Grant Assurance 22 or 24 and dismissed the Complaint. Complainant appealed. The Associate Administrator affirmed all findings of the Director’s Determination and additionally found the following:|Procedural Issues:|Complainant has the burden of proof in a Part 16 case. Complainant must prove its allegations of unjust economic discrimination by providing evidence that similar terms and conditions were requested and were subsequently denied without adequate justification. (p. 16)|Complainant failed to meet its burden of proof to show unjust economic discrimination where it failed to assert that it requested a waiver of the discriminatory treatment. (p. 16).|It is not an improper shift of the burden of proof to require the Complainant to show that it requested terms and conditions identical to other FBOs, because the Grant Assurances do not require the Authority to offer identical lease terms and the lease was negotiated at arms length. (p. 16).
Index Terms:
Unjust economic discrimination|Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22)|Fee and Rental Structure (Grant Assurance 24)|Self-sustainability|Fuel flowage fees|Leasehold improvements|Exclusive use|Similarly situated|Fixed-base operator (FBO) agreement|Burden of proof|Appraisals|Bids