Vortex Aviation Servs., LLC v. Jackson Hole Airport Bd. -- No. 16-00-18
Director's Determination (06/21/2001) [Determination No.86].
Lexis Cite:
2001 FAA LEXIS 463
Westlaw Cite:
2001 WL 865710
Author:
Bennett, David L., Director
Complainant(s):
Vortex Aviation Services, LLC
Respondent(s):
Jackson Hole (Wyo.) Airport Board
Airport(s):
Jackson Hole Airport (JRA)
Holding:
Dismissing complaint.
Abstract:
Complainant Vortex Aviation Services, LLC, an operator of scenic and charter flights, filed a complaint against Respondent, Jackson Hole Airport Board, sponsor of the Jackson Hole Airport, alleging that Respondent violated Grant Assurances 22 and 23 by imposing a moratorium denying Complainant the right to operate while Respondent awaited a conclusive determination that Respondent’s operations were lawful under the National Park Air Tour Act 2000 (Air Tour Act). Prior to this determination, Respondent lifted the moratorium on March 1, 2001, after receiving a conclusive decision from the FAA that Complainant was in compliance with the Air Tour Act. The Director found Respondent not in violation and dismissed the Complaint.|Past Violations:|Whether Respondent unjustly discriminated against Complainant by denying Complainant the right to operate while permitting a competitor to operate was moot, because Complainant was granted authority to resume operations as of March 1, 2001. (p. 13).|The FAA did not consider Complainant’s claims to financial harm in excess of $100,000 resulting from the moratorium imposed by Respondent during the short summer season, because “the FAA seeks current compliance by airport sponsors and generally does not take punitive action for past behavior but for some very limited circumstances (such as unlawful diversion of airport revenue).” (p. 13).|Complainant’s objections to terms of a direct contract to operate on the Airport between Complainant and Respondent on grounds that they were unreasonably restrictive and not applied to other operators were moot, because the terms were modified sufficiently to respond to the concerns raised by Complainant. (p. 15).|Respondent was not in violation of the exclusive rights prohibition where the terms of the March 1, 2001 agreements provided Complainant the desired access to the Airport by allowing Complainant to provide scenic and charter flights to the public, and no allegations were presented by Complainant that the terms of the March 1, 2001 agreements were inconsistent with the exclusive rights prohibition. (p. 16).|Complainant’s allegation that Respondent violated the Federal Preemption Provision, 49 U.S.C. § 41713, by denying Complainant the ability to operate its scenic tour operations was moot, because Complainant obtained the desired right to operate scenic air tour operations as of March 1, 2001. (p. 16).|Jurisdiction:|The civil court, not the FAA, was the appropriate forum in which Complainant could seek remedies for alleged damages resulting from past discrimination during the period of Respondent’s imposed moratorium, which denied Complainant the right to operate scenic flights. (p. 17).
Index Terms:
Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22)|Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23)|Unjust economic discrimination|Jurisdiction - Part 16|Remedied past violations|Revenue diversion|Airline agreement|Sightseeing tours