Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc. v. City of Renton Municipal Airport – No. 16-15-03
FAA Docket No:
FAA Docket No. 16-15-03
Author:
Kevin C. Willis, Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis
Complainant(s):
Pro-Flight AviationRespondent(s):
City of Renton, WashingtonAirport(s):
City of Renton Municipal Airport (RNT)
Holding:
Complaint dismissed.Abstract:
Complainant was a for-profit corporation and two-decades-long tenant at the airport, providing aeronautical services such as aircraft maintenance, flight instruction, rental aircraft, fueling, and other flight-line services. The Complainant objected to the airport’s decisions regarding the allocation of limited space available at the airport and alleged that, in an effort to accommodate the Boeing Company, misled it about the availability of airport parcels designated for general aviation use. (p. 2.) (Boeing was not a party to the complaint, but the airport’s lease of certain parcels to Boeing and allowance of certain through-the-fence operations was central to the proceeding.) (p. 1.)
The Complainant alleged that the airport’s misrepresentation delayed its application competing with Boeing to lease certain parcels and that the airport entered into a lease with Boeing for land it does not have an immediate need for. The Complaintant thus requested, in part, that the FAA direct the airport and Boeing not to evict it from current aircraft toe-downs on the parcel at issue that it was renting, direct Boeing to divest from the parcels in dispute, and make such parcels available for lease to the Complainant. (p. 2.)
The Complainant further asserted that the airport violated five grant assurances: (1) Grant Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers, by allowing a tenant to leave its leasehold idle and vacant, thereby permitting the tenant the discretion to determine when the leasehold of designated general aviation property would be utilized for aviation purposes; (2) Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, by unfairly discriminating against the Complainants using a different lease application process for Boeing, thereby giving Boeing preferential treatment during negotiations for the leasehold; (3) Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights, by leasing the only remaining tie-down spaces to Boeing and by granting Boeing the sole use of the vehicle drive lane adjacent to the Alpha taxiway; (4) Grant Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure, by not charging an alleged non-aeronautical tenant fair market value for leased aeronautical property; and (5) Grant Assurance 29, Airport Layout Plan, by leasing a large tract of airport property designated on the Airport Layout Plan for general aviation to a non-general aviation tenant without approval of the Secretary. (p. 2.) The Director dismissed each of the Complainant’s allegations.
The airport acknowledged that the Complainant submitted an application and that a transportation and aviation committee considered it. The airport also stated that selecting Boeing for the short-term lease over a long-term lease to the Complainant was a logical and reasonable decision under the circumstances and not a violation of the grant assurances. The airport further asserted that based on the definition of aeronautical, Boeing’s use of the tie-down area was an aeronautical activity. Finally, the airport noted that it offered the Complainant tie-down space on a different parcel, but the Complainant refused, declaring that the only parcel it would consider was the Parcel 760 at issue.
The Director dismissed the complaint. First, the Director concluded that no violation of Grant Assurance 5 occurred in that the airport’s lease with Boeing contained the required language subordinating the lease to federal grants and conveyances; moreover, the Complainant “in its pleadings, contradicted its allegation that the Boeing parcels would remain unused; admitting that [the Complainant] continued to rent tie-down spaces on Parcel 760 until Boeing needed them.” (p. 15.)
Second, the Complainant contended that the Boeing leasehold was inconsistent with the Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan because it provides no aeronautical service at the airport. (p. 18.) “The facts do not support a claim of unjust discrimination based on the Airport’s decision to grant the leasehold to Boeing rather than to the Complainant. The Airport offered other tie-down space on the airport that the Complainant declined. It is also clear that Boeing’s activities are aeronautical. Accordingly, the Director finds that facts do not support the allegation of a violation of Grant Assurance 22.” (p. 19.)Third, the Director found no violation of Grant Assurance 23 as the “Complainant did not establish that the Airport leased the only remaining tie-down spaces at the Airport to Boeing and failed to provide Complainant with additional tie-down spaces at the airport. The Airport offered, and the Complainant rejected additional space to accommodate aircraft tie-downs.” (p. 22.) “The Director recognizes that the offered spaces did not meet the stated desires of the Complainant; however, that does not mean that the Airport has violated the prohibition of granting an exclusive right. The Airport made a business decision regarding the best use of the available space on the airport.” (p. 21.)
Fourth, the Complainant asserted that the airport was in violation of Grant Assurance 24 because the airport was not charging Boeing the fair market value of the parcels based on its belief that Boeing was a non-aeronautical user of the airport. The Director found that “Boeing is an aeronautical tenant and an aeronautical rate is appropriate.” (p. 23.)
The Complaint also raised an issue and allegation unrelated to the lease or Boeing, stating that the airport allowed a former FBO tenant that went out of business over three years ago to continue to store two above-ground fuel storage tanks without receiving rent for the storage tanks. (p. 23.) But, the Director found that the fuel tanks were on leased parcels for which the airport was collecting rent and that “the complaint does not state a valid claim or provide sufficient evidence to find a violation related to the tanks, an issue that, if a violation at all, occurred in the past.” (p. 24.)
Finally, the Complainant contended that the airport violated Grant Assurance 29 by leasing large areas of the airport that were designated as general aviation to Boeing, whereas other areas of the airport leased to Boeing were designated aircraft manufacturing. (p. 24.) “The Complainant’s claim that the Airport violated its leasing policy is not a matter to be adjudicated by the Director. Nonetheless, the record does not support the allegation that the airport committed a material deviation from its leasing policy.” (p. 25.)