Ricks v. Millington Mun. Airport Auth. -- No. 16-98-19

FAA Docket No:

16-98-19

Lexis Cite:

1999 FAA LEXIS 800

Westlaw Cite:

1999 WL 636161

Author:

Bennett, David L., Director

Author Title:

Director

Complainant(s):

Ricks, James Vernon, Jr.|Ricks, Michael Matthew|Ricks, Valley E.|Millington Aviation, LLC

Respondent(s):

Millington (Tenn.) Municipal Airport Authority

Airport(s):

Millington Municipal Airport (NQA)

History:

Affirmed by Final Decision and Order of Dec. 30, 1999. See Determination No. 57.

Holding:

Dismissing complaint.

Abstract:

Complainant, James Vernon Ricks, Michael Matthew Ricks, Valley E. Ricks, d/b/a Millington Aviation, filed a complaint against Respondent, the Millington Municipal Airport Authority, sponsor of the Millington Municipal Airport, alleging that Respondent violated Grant Assurance 23 by denying Complainant an FBO lease and instead granting a lease to its competitor, Tulsair. FAA also interpreted the Complaint as alleging violations of Grant Assurance 22. The Director found Respondent not in violation and dismissed the Complaint|Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22):|Respondent did not violate Grant Assurances 22 or 23 by denying Complainant's lease application and entering into a lease agreement with Tulsair where each applicant was required to provide similar information and the type of information required was reasonable, Tulsair provided the required business plan and an audited financial statement and Complainant did not. (pp. 20-21).|Complainant's claim that Respondent unjustly discriminated against it by providing bad information regarding Respondent's procedures and intent failed because the record did not support any intent by Respondent to deceive Complainant. (p. 22).|Complainant's claim that Respondent unjustly discriminated against it by undermining Complainant's efforts to obtain the Department of Defense fuels contracts from the FBO in bankruptcy failed, because FAA could not conclude that any truthful information provided to the Department of Defense regarding the contracts constituted unjust economic discrimination against Complainant, nor could FAA conclude that any omission of information regarding Respondent's actions in the FBO's bankruptcy proceeding constituted unjust discrimination against Complainant. (p. 23).|Complainant's claim that Respondent delayed in providing documents to Complainant did not amount to an allegation of unjust economic discrimination as embodied in Respondent's Grant Assurances. (p. 23).|Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23):|The fact that Respondent had only one full service FBO at the Airport did not mean that it had granted an exclusive right. "So long as the opportunity to engage in an aeronautical activity is available to those meeting the reasonable qualifications and standards relevant to such activity, the fact that only one enterprise takes advantage of the opportunity does not constitute the grant of an exclusive right." (p. 24).|Respondent did not grant an exclusive right to Tulsair where there was no convincing evidence that there was space available at the Airport or that Tulsair was not utilizing all of its space. (p. 25).

Index Terms:

Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22)|Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23)|Unjust economic discrimination|Fixed-base operator (FBO) agreement|Delay by airport sponsor