Flightline Ground, Inc. v. La. Dep’t of Transp. & Dev.-253

FAA Docket No:

16-11-01

Author:

Fiertz, Randall S., Director

Author Title:

Director

Complainant(s):

Flightline Ground, Inc.

Respondent(s):

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development|Non-Flood Protection Asset Management Authority

Airport(s):

New Orleans Lakefront Airport (NEW)

Holding:

Dismissing complaint.

Abstract:

Respondent is the Non-Flood Protection Asset Management Authority of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, governing authority of the Non-Flood assets of the Orleans Levee District, including the New Orleans Lakefront Airport. The Complainant, Flightline Ground, Inc., alleged a variety of violations related to Respondent’s arrangements and contractual agreements with a competing airport operator and its maintenance of the Airport.|Grant Assurances 5 and 29:|Complainant alleged that Respondent violated Grant Assurances 5 and 29 by granting a competing operator the right to sublease, at its option, certain Airport facilities. The Director found that there was no current violation of the Grant Assurances, but that subleases “should be subject to sponsor concurrence.” (p. 18).|Complainant also alleged that Respondent violated Grant Assurances 5 and 29 by allowing a competing operator the right at its sole option to cancel its lease for certain Airport facilities. The Director found that this provision was not sufficient to find Respondent in noncompliance, but encouraged Respondent “to administer and enforce provisions in its lease agreements with its tenants.” (p. 20).|Grant Assurance 19:|Complainant alleged that Respondent violated Grant Assurance 19 by timely failing to restore a hangar sitting on Complainant’s premises. The hangar had been damaged by Hurricane Katrina (as had a number of other Airport facilities). The Director found that “[i]t is understandable that repairs and reconstruction as a result of Hurricane Katrina may not necessarily have been completed as timely as desired. However, rather than a violation of Grant Assurance 19, this issue is instead a potential breach of law between the contracted parties . . . and was more appropriately addressed in state court.” (p. 23).|Complainant also alleged that Respondent violated Grant Assurance 19 by leaving an open drain area on an Airport ramp. The Director found that there was not “substantial evidence of repeated failure” to properly maintain the ramp. (p. 24).|Grant Assurance 22:|Complainant alleged that Respondent violated Grant Assurance 22 by entering into a settlement agreement that offered rent credits and other concessions to a competitor. The Director found that the FAA would “not substitute its judgment for that of the court or [Respondent] in determining the level of damages appropriate to resolve [Respondent’s] alleged breach of lease” with the competitor. (p. 32). As such, it was “not persuaded” that Complainant had been economically disadvantaged by the settlement agreement. (p. 32).|Grant Assurance 24:|Complainant alleged that Respondent violated Grant Assurance 24 by reducing rent to a competitor while renovations were ongoing on the leased premises. The Director dismissed the allegation on the grounds that the rent credits did “not negatively impact the ability of the airport to be as self-sustaining as possible under” the circumstances in question, and “[c]ourt costs and settlement expenses as a result of a lawsuit are an acceptable use of airport revenue.” (p. 38).

Index Terms:

Flightline Ground, Inc. v. La. Dep't of Transp. & Dev. -- No. 16-11-01 -- No. FAA-2011-0529