Union Flights, Inc. v. S.F. Int'l Airport -- No. 16-99-11
Director's Determination (02/15/2000) [Determination No.59].
Lexis Cite:
2000 FAA LEXIS 316
Westlaw Cite:
2000 WL 311170
Author:
Bennett, David L., Director
Complainant(s):
Union Flights, Inc.
Respondent(s):
San Francisco (Cal.) International Airport|San Francisco (Cal.)
Airport(s):
San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
Holding:
Dismissing complaint.
Abstract:
Complainant, Union Flights, Inc., an air carrier, filed a complaint against Respondents San Francisco International Airport and the City and County of San Francisco, alleging that Respondents violated their federal obligations by imposing a landing fee schedule that was unreasonable and excessive, and unreasonably discriminating against Complainant by applying landing fee rates to Complainant’s aircraft that were higher than rates applied to larger aircraft. The Director found Respondents not in violation and dismissed the Complaint.|Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22):|Respondents’ practice of charging a minimum landing fee on all signatory and non-signatory carriers operating aircraft weighing less than a threshold landing weight was a reasonable condition of airport use, because collecting a minimum landing fee is standard industry practice. (p. 15).|The minimum landing fee on aircraft below a threshold landing weight was not unjustly discriminatory, because (1) the statutory prohibition against unjust economic discrimination does not prevent Respondents from making reasonable distinctions between aeronautical users such as signatory and non-signatory air carriers; and (2) all non-signatory carriers operating aircraft below a certain weight were charged the same minimum landing fee. (p. 15).|Respondent’s minimum landing fee charged to air carriers below a threshold weight requirement was reasonable where its methodology was supported by a description of the SFO cost accounting system, the SFO-Signatory Agreement, analysis of SFO rates and charges, the Respondent’s Resolution, and budgeted costs, which Complainant failed to rebut. (pp. 21-22).|The minimum landing fee charged to air carriers below a threshold weight was equitably calculated, because the fee was based on “a realistic and nondiscriminatory allocation of the Airport’s operating and capital costs attributable to operations with aircraft weighing less than the designated threshold landing weight.” (p. 23).|Complainant was not exempt from sharing in the cost of Respondents’ FAA-mandated emergency services even though it had not used those services, because the emergency services were required under FAR Part 139 and even though Complainant had not used these services, it benefited from the availability of the services if only prospectively should an emergency occur. (p. 23).|Jurisdiction:|Complainant was neither prohibited from bringing a complaint under 14 C.F.R. pt. 16 nor limited to bringing the fee dispute under 49 U.S.C. § 47129 using expedited procedures, because interpreting 14 C.F.R. pt. 16 to bar “all complaints which were not adjudicated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 47129, but otherwise could have been, would prohibit the FAA from fulfilling its responsibilities under 49 U.S.C. §§ 46101, 46105, and 47122.” (p. 19).
Index Terms:
Economic Nondiscrimination (Grant Assurance 22)|Unjust economic discrimination|Landing fees|Jurisdiction - Part 16|Airline agreement|Cost-based methodology|Rates and charges