Author:
Bennett, David L., Director
Complainant(s):
General Aviation, Inc.
Respondent(s):
Capital Region Airport Authority
Airport(s):
Capital City Airport (LAN)
Holding:
Dismissing complaint.
Abstract:
Complainant, General Aviation, Inc., filed a complaint against Respondent, Capital Region Airport Authority, owner of Capital City Airport of Lansing, Michigan, alleging that Respondent violated Grant Assurance 22 by unjustly discriminating against Complainant in (1) the collection of fuel flowage fees; (2) apron rent requirements; (3) site improvements for T-hangars; (4) paying for ramp improvements; (5) funding automatic gates; (6) terms, charges, rentals and fees; and (7) imposing building restriction lines. The Director found Respondent not in violation and dismissed the Complaint.|Similarly Situated:|"FAA policy provides that variations in commercial aeronautical activities' leasehold locations, leasehold improvements, and the services provided from such leaseholds may be the basis for acceptable differences in the sponsor's treatment of aeronautical service providers, although rates, charges and minimum standards must be reasonable and nondiscriminatory." (p. 13).|Complainant and Superior Aviation, Inc. (SA) were not similarly situated where (1) Complainant's agreement for use of the Airport predated Respondent's operation of the Airport and SA negotiated its agreement with different airport management under different market circumstances and with a different business strategy - one that combined air carrier and FBO services; (2) Complainant and SA's facilities differed in size and location; and (3) Complainant and SA's facilities differed in use - SA was both an FBO and a scheduled air carrier while Complainant was a FBO but not a scheduled air carrier. (pp. 13-14).|Complainant and two T-hangar concessionaires were not similarly situated where (1) the entirety of Complainant's T-hangar facility was not being rented as hangar space; (2) the concessionaires rented T-hangars individually to the general public for the storage of single-engine aircraft only while Complainant's T-hangars accommodated dual-engine aircraft or larger; and (3) concessionaires' facilities were located at a different part of the Airport from Complainant's. (pp. 14-15).|Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22):|Respondent was not in violation of Grant Assurance 22 for failing to collect fuel flowage fees from Complainant's competitor, SA, where there was no allegation or evidence that Respondent was currently in noncompliance. Indeed, since Respondent had instituted legal action against SA to collect back payment of fees and codified consistent procedures regarding the collection of flowage fees, it had demonstrated the ability and willingness to abide by its federal obligations. (pp. 16-17).|Respondent was not in violation of Grant Assurance 22 for failing to apply its minimum standards regarding apron rent requirements equally to Complainant and competitor where the parties agreed that this issue had been resolved. (p. 17).|Respondent did not violate Grant Assurance 22 by requiring Complainant to pay to pave the taxiway to the T-hangars that were under Complainant's exclusive use and control, while not requiring other concessionaires to pay for paving the public taxiway that provided access to their hangars. FAA found that Complainant was the exclusive user of the taxiways accessing its T-hangar facility on its exclusive leasehold, that Complainant was not similarly situated with the T-hangar concessionaires utilizing the public taxiway, that Complainant did not pay rent for its taxiway area, and that the taxiway built by Respondent with federal assistance served multiple tenants. (p. 22).|Respondent did not violate Grant Assurance 22 by prohibiting Complainant's use of a public apron while allowing competitor's use where Respondent had made clear that its policy did not prohibit Complainant's use and the record showed that Respondent understood its obligation to prohibit exclusive use of the public apron, had an enforcement program, and carried out this program by conducting routine inspections of the public-use apron. (p. 25).|Respondent's imposition of new building restriction lines (BRLs) on several of Complainant's rental properties due to the redesignation of a runway was not unjustly discriminatory in violation of Grant Assurance 22, because (1) the change in BRLs would be reflected on Respondent's Airport Layout Plan, which was reviewed by the FAA for compliance with federal grant assurances; (2) an airport sponsor's redesignation or enhancement of a runway is a reasonable enhancement to the efficiency of the Airport; and (3) Complainant did not allege that any other entity on the Airport was afforded more favorable treatment. (pp. 29-30).
Index Terms:
Unjust economic discrimination|Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22)|Fuel flowage fees|Leasehold improvements|Similarly situated|Exclusive use|Fixed-base operator (FBO) agreement|Land lease|Hangar lease