Roadhouse Aviation v. City of Tulsa-83 – ACRP Legal Research Digest 21

FAA Docket No:

16-05-08

Lexis Cite:

2006 FAA LEXIS 838

Westlaw Cite:

2006 WL 3914734

Author:

Bennett, David L., Director

Author Title:

Director

Complainant(s):

Roadhouse Aviation

Respondent(s):

Tulsa (Okla.)|Tulsa (Okla.) Airports Improvement Trust

Airport(s):

Richard Lloyd Jones Jr. Airport (RVS)|Riverside Airport, alternatively

History:

Affirmed by Final Decision and Order of June 26, 2007. See Determination No. 179.

Holding:

Dismissing complaint.

Abstract:

Complainant Roadhouse Aviation filed a complaint and six amendments to its complaint against Respondents, City of Tulsa and Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust, owner of the Richard Lloyd Jones Jr. Airport, alleging that Respondents violated Grant Assurances 5, 19, 22, and 23 by giving another FBO (Christiansen Aviation) special treatment and permitting a monopoly on the Airport. The Director found Respondents not in violation and dismissed the Complaint.|Operation and Maintenance (Grant Assurance 19):|Respondents were not in violation of Grant Assurance 19 for permitting a Cessna 441A, which has a wingspan of 49.3 feet, to traverse Respondents’ taxilane that was designed for aircraft with a wingspan of up to but not including 49 feet; FAA guidance permits reduced clearances for certain situations. “Based on AC 150/5300-13 Appendix 9, in this particular case, where there is a difference in wingspan less than a few inches on one aircraft that utilizes the hangar, FAA would not require Respondents to revise its taxilane design criteria for one aircraft that fails to meet the design category’s initial criteria.” (p. 17).|Aircraft that “started up and taxied between Complainant’s fuel trucks without coordinating the action with Complainant” were compliant with safety standards, because “the pilot exercised prudent judgment, there was no pedestrian traffic, and there was an estimated 13 feet clearance on either side of him.” (p. 17).|“While Complainant may or may not agree with FAA’s safety determination, FAA is final arbiter of matters regarding aviation safety.” (p. 17).|Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22):|Respondents were not required to provide Complainant with the same leasehold terms as competing FBO because the two FBOs’ leaseholds were not similarly situated – Complainant had a tie-down sublease while competing FBO had an “exclusive lease area.” (p. 19).|Respondents were “not required to make Complainant’s lease equal to [a competing FBO’s] lease or vice versa.” (p. 19).|Respondents could refuse to offer exclusive lease area terms to Complainant at its leased tie-down blocks, because Complainant had contracted for the tie-down block with provisions for taxilane access and had assured Respondents that access would not be an issue. (p. 20).|Respondent was not in violation of Grant Assurance 22 for unfairly enforcing its sign policy where the policy giving rise to this allegation had been superceded by a more recent policy. FAA was only concerned with current compliance. (p. 31).|Respondents’ decision to subject Complainant to an audit after Complainant filed its Part 16 complaint did not unjustly discriminate against Complainant where Complainant’s competitors have been subject to the same audits in the past. (p. 33). Because the audit of Complainant was dictated by the city code, challenges to the ethics and administration of the audit must be made in the appropriate local forum, not a Part 16 proceeding. (p. 33).|Respondents could measure and mark Complainant’s tie-down block leaseholds without measuring and marking all other leaseholds on the Airport if only Complainant’s leaseholds were the subject of dispute. (p. 34).|Preserving Rights and Powers (Grant Assurance 5):|Respondents’ action to amend its lease assignment policy at the recommendation of its counsel to require that steps be taken before a lease assignment was approved was not evidence that Respondents had previously violated Grant Assurance 5 by approving hangar lease assignments after the fact. (p. 23).| “[A]irport sponsors may change their policies and practices over time to reflect the current situation.” (p. 23).|Respondents could reasonably withhold consent to lease assignments, because “[i]t is a sponsor’s right to determine if approval of an assignment will create an exclusive right or monopoly or be in noncompliance with its federal obligations or some other basis.” (p. 24).|It was not improper for Respondents to approve the hangar lease assignment to Complainant’s competitor after the agreement had been formulated, because it was “understandable for business enterprises … to have the particulars spelled out before they [took] their position to the airport sponsor/owner for approval." (p. 24).|Exclusive Rights (Grant Assurance 23):|Respondents did not grant an exclusive right to provide FBO services at the Airport where the record reflected that five entities on the Airport had rights to provide FBO services. (p. 28).|Respondents made good faith efforts to accommodate Complainant’s desire for a leasehold to provide large bulk hangar space, but Respondents were not obligated under their grant assurances to provide Complainant with space at a price acceptable to the Complainant. (p. 28).|Despite the non-regulatory language in FAA Order 5190.6A calling for an FBO to show a “demonstrated immediate need for space,” grant assurances do not require a demonstrated immediate need to be proven before an airport can approve an assignment of a lease. (p. 28).|Respondents did not violate Grant Assurance 23 in its acceptance of the lease assignment to Christiansen Aviation where Aviation had put the hangar into productive use and other space was available for rental. (p. 29).

Index Terms:

Roadhouse Aviation v. City of Tulsa -- No. 16-05-08 -- No. FAA-2005-22368