## I 

## ( ^ - 

## ( 0 - ^" S

UNITED STATE S O F AMERIC A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERAL AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N I n r e th e Complaint

o f MERCURY AI

RCENTER-CORPU S CHRISTI , INC. , d/b/aATLANTI C AVL\TIO N 35 5 Pinso n Drive , Corpu s Christi , TX 7840 6

COMPLAINANT , -against

CIT Y OF CORPU S CHRIST I

RESPONDENT . Pursuant t o Par t 1 6 o f th e Federal Aviatio n Regulation s

PAR T 1 6 COMPLAIN T

File d by : Leonard D . Kirsch , Esq . McBree n & Kopk

o Attorney s fo

r COMPLAINANT Mercur y Air Center-Corpvi s Christi , Inc. , D/B/ A Atlanti c Aviatio n 50 0 Nort h Broadwa

y Jericho , New Yor

k 1175 3 (516 ) 364-109 5 Fax (516 ) 364-061 2UNITE D STATE S O F AMERIC A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERAL AVL^TIO N ADMINISTRATIO N I n r e th e Complaint

o f MERCURY AIRCENTER-CORPU S CHRISTI , INC. , d/b/aATLANTI C AVIATIO N 35 5 Pinso n Drive , Corpu s Christi , TX 7840 6

COMPLAINANT , -againstT ^ CIT Y O F CORPU S CHRIST I

RESPONDENT . Pursuant t o Par t 1 6 o f th e Federal Aviatio n Regulation s COMPLAIN T PARTIES : 1 . Th e COMPLAINANT i s MERCURY AI RCENTER-CORPU S CHRISTI , INC. , doin g busines s a s ATLANTI C AVIATIO N ("COMPLAINANT") , acorporatio n organize dan dexistin g under th e law s o f

th e State o f

Texas , wit

h it s corporate office s a

t 650 4 International Parkway , Piano , TX 75093 , an d a n airpor t offic e a t 35 5 Pinso n Drive , Corpu s Christi , TX 78406 . COMPLAINANT i s part o f th e ATLANTI C AVL\TIO N group o f Fixe dBase dOperation s ("FBOs") , al l o f whic h ar e under th e commo n ownership o f MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTUR E COMPANY LL C throug h aserie s o f subsidiar y an daffiliate dcompanies . 2 . Th e RESPONDENT i s th e CITY O F CORPU S CHRIST I ("RESPONDENT") , agovernmental entit y organize d and existin g pursuan t to legislatio nb y th e Stat e o f Texas , wit

h office s a

t 120 1 Leopard St . Corpu s Christi , T X 78401 , an da n airpor t authorit y offic e a t Corpu s Christ

i Internationa

l Airport , 1000 Intemational Drive , Corpu s Christi , T X 7840 6 ("Airpor

t Authority") . Th e Airpor t Authorit y manage s Corpu s Christ

i Intemational Airpor

t ("CRP " or

"Airport") . 3 . A s arecipien t

o f federa l funding unde r

th e Airpor

t Improvement

Progra m (AIP) , th e RESPONDENT i s obligate d t o compl y wit h th e term s o f

Federal Aviatio n Administratio n ("FAA" ) grant agreements , includin g th e standard sponso r assurance s an

d an y advisor y circiilars , rule s an d regulation s incorporate d b y referenc e i n thos e assurances . JURISDICTION : 4 . Thi s Complaint

allege s violation s o f

th e followin g statutes , regulations . Order s an dCircular s b y th e RESPONDENT : Sectio n 51 1 (a) o f

th e Airpor

t an d Airway Improvement Ac t o f 1982 , a s amended , 4 9 us e sectio n 47107(a) ; sectio n 308(a ) o f th e Federal Aviatio n Ac t o f 1958 , a s amended , 4 9 U.S.C . sectio n 40103(e) ; an d Assuranc e No . 2 2 (Economi c Nondiscrimination ) o f

th e "Airpor

t Assurances " date d Marc h 2005 , a s supplemente d b y Sectio n 2 o f

Advisor y Circula r 50/5190-6 , date

d Januar y 4 , 2007 , and b y Chapter s 9 and 1 1 o f th e FAA Airpor

t Complianc e Manual 5190.6b , date d September 30,2009 . PRE-COMPLAIN T RESOLUTIO N EFFORTS : 5 . Prio r

t o th e makin g o f

thi s Complaint , COMPLAINANT engage d i n substantia l an dreasonabl e goo dfait h effort s t o resolv e th e matter s herei n complaine d o f throug h informa

l means , includin g draftin g fo r Respondent' s revie w aPar t 1 3 Complaint .A s time ha s becom e o f th e essence , an d ther e appea r t o b e n o reasonabl e prospect s fo r timel y resolutio n o f

th e dispute throug h informa l means , COMPLAINANT i s filin g thi s Par t 1 6 Complaint . RESPONDENT wil l acknowledg e tha t COMPLAINANT di d seek a meetin g wit

h counse l presen t

t o discus s thi s matter , bu t RESPONDENT di d no t

agre e t o thi s meeting . 6 . COMPLAINAN

T hel d of

f filing thi s Complain t

i n th e hop e that RESPONDENT woul dabando n it s ques t t o engag e amanagemen t

company t o manag e a RESPONDENT-owne dFB O an d instea d exten d it s lease . I t chos e t o file thi s Complaint onl y afte r RESPONDEN T decide d t o engag e amanagement company . 7 . Th e issue s raise dherei n ar e ripe fo r revie w an d consideration . Thes e issue s exis t a t Airport s throughou t

th e U.S . SUPPORTIN G DOCUMENTATION : 8 . Contemporaneousl y wit h th e filing o f

thi s Complaint , COMPLAINAN T i s filing documentatio n supportin g it s allegations . Annexe d heret o a s Exhibi t 1 i s th e secon d an dfirst Draft s o f

Minimu mBusines s Term s (th e first draf t wa s include d with draf

t Minimu mStandard s an ddistribute d wit h alette r date d Augus t

4 , 2009) . Aimexe d heret o a s Exhibi t 2 i s correspondenc e date d Apri l 26 , 201 0 fromCOMPLAINANT requestin g t o mee t wit h RESPONDENT t o discus s th e matter . 9 . Annexe dheret o a s Exhibi t 3 i s acop y o f

adraf t Par t 1 3 Complaint , whic h wa s attache dt o alette r date d Jun e 9 , 2010 , sen t i n alas t

effor t t o dissuad e th e RESPONDENT . Annexe dheret o a s Exhibi t 4 i s th e COMPLAINANT' S lease . Armexe d heret o a s Exhibi t

5 i s other

correspondenc e betwee n th e partie s o n thes e issues . Other document s whic h are annexe dhereto , ar e describe d andHste

d below .ISSUE S PRESENTE D 10 . Th e issue s presente d b y thi s Complaint are : 1 . Whethe

r th e RESPONDENT' S propose d Minimu mBusines s Term s are reasonable , a s require db y Assuranc e 2 2 and Advisor y Circula r 150/5190-7 . 2 . Whethe

r th e RESPONDENT' S propose d MinimumBusines s Term s constitute unreasonabl e acces s requirement s a s the y (a) limit * retai l prices , (b ) require a n unspecifie dleve l o f

investment

ove r afixed-termlease , (c ) allo w th e RESPONDENT t o "approv e al l fiie l pricin g pohcie s and rate s b y th e FB O an d th e FB O wil l b e require dt o sel l th e fiiel a t apric e n o greater

than th e approve d price" ; (d ) allo w th e RESPONDENT to set servic e fee s charge d fo

r commercial airlin e groun dhandling ; (e ) prohibi t FBO s firomrecoverin g cost s fo r utilities , taxes , insurance , an dothe r

operatin g expenses , an d chargin g aprofi t o n subleases ; and (f ) impos e alandin g fee o n Airport-base d aircraf t tenants . 3 . Whethe

r i t i s unjustl y discriminator

y fo r asponso r

to impos e th e abov e term s o n a n FB O whil e th e sponso r operate s acompetin g FB O throug h amanagement contract . 4 . Whethe

r th e indirec t

intent o f th e propose d Minimu mBusines s Term s wa s t o threate n commerciall y ^macceptable busines s tetm s s o tha t COMPLAINANT' S refiisa l t o accep t

thes e term s coul d b e use d a s justificatio n fo r th e

' I t i s unknow n whethe

r the RESPONDENT stil l plan s t o impos e thes e Minimu mBusines s Tenn s o r use d thema s awa

y t o terminate negotiation s wit h COMPLAINANT b y threatenin g a n unacceptabl e busines s environment . HadCOMPLAINAN T agree dt o aleas e wit h thes e terms , i t

woul d hav e bee n unabl e t o complai n about

themlater . 4RESPONDENT' S terminatio n o f negotiation s ove

r aleas e renewal , thereb y denyin g COMPLAINANT reasonabl e acces s t o th e Airport . 5 . Whethe r

th e Minimu mBusines s Term s violat e FA A rule s regardin g Minimu m Standards . 6 . Whether

RESPONDENT ha s unjusti y discrimmate dagains t COMPLAINANT i n favo r o f th e remainin g FBO , Signature Flight Center . STATEMEN T O F FACT S I N SUPPOR T O F CLAIM : 11 . COMPLAINANT purchase d th e asset s o f th e Mercur

y Ai r FB O chai n i n 2007 , includin g th e governin g leas e ("FB O Lease") . Th e FB O Leas e wa s t o expire o n October 14,2009 . 12 . O n o r

about Augus t 26 , 2009 , th e propose d Minimu mBusines s Term s were first presente da

t a n Airpor t Board Meeting . Shortl y thereafte r th e RESPONDENT agree dt o exten dth e FB O Leas e unt U October

14 , 2010 . Th e FB O Leas e wa s subsequenti y extende dimti l Januar y 14,2011 . 13 . Fro mAugus t

200 9 t o Marc h 26 , 2010 , COMPLAINANT me t with , wrot e t o an dotherwis e attempte dto dissuad e th e RESPONDENT firomadoptin g th e Minimu m Busines s Terms . However o n March , 26 , 2010 , i n aletter , annexe d heret o a s Exhibi t 6 . RESPONDENT informe dCOMPLAINAN T tha t th e discussion s wer e close d an d n o fiirther clarificatio n wa s necessary . O n Ma y 19 , 2010 , RESPONDENT' S positio n wa s publicl y confirme db y th e Akport Boar d a s show n o n th e Board Agend a(annexe d heret o a s Exhibi t 7 ) Th e propose dMinimu mBusines s Term s hav e no t bee n officially adopte d b y RESPONDENT . O

n May 27 , 201 0 and agai n o n Jun e 18 , 2010 , th e RESPONDEN Tstate dtha t i t wa s "ceasing " negotiation s wit h COMPLAINAN

T over ane w lease , annexe d heret o a s Exhibi t

8 . 14 . O n Jul y 15 , 2010 , RESPONDENT issue d aReques t fo r Proposal s ("RFP" ) seekin g proposal s to manag e aRESPONDENT-owne d FBO . A cop y o f thi s RFP i s annexe dheret o a s Exhibi t 9 . On Augus t

5 , 2010 , COMPLAINANT sent alette r to th e RESPONDENT declinin g t o tak e part i n thi s process , annexe d heret o a s Exhibi t 10 . Numerou s other

FB O chains , owner s an d otiie r busines s entitie s refijse d t o submi t proposal s because , upo n informatio n an d belief , th e RF P wa s perceive d a s a

n effor t b y RESPONDENT t o forc e th e closure o f awel l regarde d FB O an d weake n th e FB O industry . Upo n informatio n an dbelie f onl y on e company responde d t o th e RFP , an d thi s company wa s selecte dt o manag e th e FBO . STATEMEN T O F CLAI M FIRS T CAUS E O F ACTIO N (UNREASONABLENESS ) 15 . Advisor

y Circula r 150/5190- 7 Sectio n 1. 1 (PoUcy) state s i n part : Th e airpor t sponso r o f afederall y obligate d airpor t agree s to mak

e availabl e the opportunit

y t o engag e i n commercia

l aerotiautica

l activitie s b

y persons , firms , o

r corporation s tha

t mee t reasonabl e minimn

mstandard s establishe

d b y th e airpor t sponsor , Th e airpor t sponsor' s purpos e i n in^josin g standard s i s t

o ensur e asafe , efficien

t an d adeqxiat e leve l of operatio n an dservice s i s offere

dt o the public . Suc

h standard s mus t

b e reasonabl e an

d no t unjustl y discriminatory , [emphasi s added ] 16 . Th e Minimu mBusines s Term

s ar e no t reasonable . RESPONDENT , a s th e operato r o f th e Airpor

t ha s oversight

authorit y t o ensure that

th e fee s charge d b y aeronautical supplier s ar e "reasonable , an d no t unjustl y discriminatory. " See , Order 5190.6 B Chapter

18.2(a) . RESPONDENT ha s n o right t o veto , lunit , o r

otherwis e approv e pricin g set

b y FBOs , includin g fue

l price s and servic e fee s to commercia l an d charter customers . No t

onl y i s suc h right

a n improper

exercis e o f

governmenta

l power , 6bu t

suc h right

woul drestric t

rathe r than promot e competitio n an d mak e i t impossibl e fo

r FBO s t o successfiilly operat e a t th e Airport . 17 . FBO s ar

e require db y th e propose d MinimumBusines s Term s t o make a capital investment

o f a t leas t $100,000 , bu t

th e exac t amoun t wil l no t b e determine d unti l afte r aleas e wit

h afive year

ter mi s executed . Thes e Minimu mBvisines s Term s requir e FBO s t o agre e to inves t

capital withou t

knowin g ho w muc h capita l wU l b e require d an d withou t knowin g whethe r

th e leas e termwil l b e lon g enoug h to allo w th e FB O t o fiiUy amortiz e it s investment . It i s unreasonabl e t o require a n investment

whic h canno t

b e amortize dagains t

revenue s andwhic h wi

U allo w areasonabl e busuaes s profit . Chapter 1 2 o f 5190.6 B describe s atest , t o wit : (3) . Term . Doe s th e ter

mexcee d aperio d o f

year s tha t i s reasonabl y necessar

y to amortiz e atenant' s investment ? Doe s th e leas e provid e fo r multipl e option s t o th e ter m wit h n o increase dcompensatio n t o th e sponsor ? Mos t tenan t groun d lease s o f

3 0 t o 3 5 year s are sufficien

t t o retir e atenant' s initial financing and provid e areasonabl e retur n fo r th e tenant' s developmen t o f major facilities . Lease s tha

t excee d 5 0 year s may b e considere dadisposal o f

th e propert

y i n tha t th e ter mo f th e leas e wU

l Hkel y excee d th e usefii l lif e o f th e structure s erecte d o n th e property . FA A office s shoul d no t

consent t o propose dleas e term s tha t

excee d 5 0 years . 18 . Under

th e MinimumBusines s Terms , FBO s are no t allowe d t o charg e more tha n th e rent

the y ar e currenti y payin g RESPONDENT h i an y sublease . Th e inability o f

a n FB O t o pas s o n all costs , includin g bu t no t limite d t o utilities , taxes , insuranc e andother

operatin g expenses , i s undul y restrictiv e and unreasonable . 19 . Thos e provision s o f th e Minimu mBusines s Term s wit h regard t o th e settin g o f price s ru n contrar

y t o principle s o f

fai r competition , a s wel l a s t o th e state d policie s o f

th e FAA , includin g bu t no t limite d to , th e Sponsor/Grant Assurances . RESPONDENT sought/seek s th e right t o approv e al l fiiel pricin g policie s and rate s b y th e FB O an dth e FB O wil l b e require d t o sel l th e fue l a t apric e n o greater

than th e approve dprice . Whil e a n Airpor t Sponso r ma y require that

it s aeronautica

l user s charg e reasonabl e an dno t unjusti y discriminator

y rate s an d fees , allowin g aSponsor t o assum e th e right

to approv e al l price s i s o n it s fac e unreasonable . 20 . Th e Mmimu mBushies s Term s grant RESPONDENT no t

onl y tiie right

t o revie w th e rate s charge db y FBO s bu t wil l als o grant

RESPONDENT th e right, i n it s sol e an d absolut e discretion , to se t suc h fixeling an

d other servic e fees . However , i t

i s universa

l industr y practic e fo

r th e price s fo

r th e aeronautica

l service s offered b y FBO s t o b e determuie db y takin g into accoun t avariety o f

commercia

l factors , includin g th e direc t an d indirec t

cost s an dexpense s i n providin g th e good s or service s (e.g. , materials , goods , wages , overhead , insurance , hom e office , etc. ) mrelatio n to th e relativ e deman d and availabilit y fi-omalternate source s fo r th e same good s or

service s a

t th e Airport . Under th e Minimu mBusines s Terms , RESPONDENT assume s th e right to approv e an d set price s withou t

an y regardor

measure o f

eac h FBO' s cos t

o f doin g business , fiiel throughput , customer

volumes , o r

an y other busmes s justification . Suc h interferenc e wit h th e fi-ee marke t

force s i s tantamoun t

t o pric e fixing and can b e characterize d a s pe r s e unlawfti l imde

r federa l anti-trus t

laws . 1 5 U.S.C . Se c 1 . Suc h unlawfiil action s ar e pe r s e unreasonable . 21 . Th e Minimu mBusines s Term s wil l resul t i n horizontal pric e fixing amon g th e FBO s a

t th e Auport

i n violatio n o f

th e Federa

l Trad e Commissio n Act . 1 5 U.S.C . Se c 45(a) . Suc h unlawfi daction s ar c pe r s e unreasonable . 22 . Th e settin g o f

fee s that FBO s may charg e wil l inhibi t rathe r than promot e fai r an dope n competitio n t o provid e hangar , fiieling an d othe r aeronautical service s t o genera l aviatio n owner s an doperator s a t th e Airport . Th e impac t

o f thi s Standard ca

n als ohav e far-reachin g effect s b y drivin g general aviatio n busuies s firomth e Airpor t t o other nearb y fields. Instea do f

increasin g th e busines s incentiv e t o distinguis h on e bran d and leve l o f service , th e Standard s wil l wor k t o eliminate an y busines s reaso n t o rais e th e qualit y o f services , lower

prices , an d otherwis e compete fo r ne w busines s sinc e th e fee s eac h FB O ca

n charg e woul di n effec

t b e set o r a t leas t limite d b y th e RESPONDENT . 23 . COMPLAINTAN

T i s on e o f

tw o FBO s a

t th e Airport . Currentiy , aurcraf t owner s ca n see k competitiv e price s an d negotiate for aeronautica

l service s firomtw o o f

th e larges t national FB O chain s presen t a t th e Airport . RESPONDENT , meffec t ha s demande dth e right

t o se t or a t leas t limi t servic e fee s fo

r commercia

l airlin e groun d handling . Thi s deman di f

unplemente d woul d limi t

competitio n and i s thu s unreasonable . 24 . Th e RESPONDENT' S requirement t o charg e landin g fee s t o Airpor t base d aurcraf t tenant s i s als o unreasonabl e an d wil l resul t i n divertm g genera

l aurcraf t owner s t o othe r nearb y airports . 25 . Advisor

y Curcula r 150/5190- 7 Sectio n 1.2 (d ) 5 state s i n part : (5 ) Ensur e standards provid

e the opportunit

y fo r newcomer

s wh o mee t the minimu

m standards t o offe r thei r aeronautica

l service s withi

n th e marke t deman d fo r suc h services . Th e Minimu mBusines s Term s d o th e exac t opposite . The y ar

e mean t t o dissuad e COMPLAINAN

T an dan y other

FB O fi-omseekin g t

o d o busmes s mCorpu s Christ i firomofferin g thei r

services . 

### SECOND CAUS E O F ACTIO N (UNREASONABL E DENIA

L O F ACCESS ) 26 . COMPLAINANT repeat s eac h and ever y allegatio n containe d i n paragraph s 1 5 to 2 5 sinc e eac h o f thes e action s an d omission s constitute "unreasonabl e denial o f access. "27 . COMPLAINANT seek s t o rema ma n FB O a t tiie Airport , i s willin g t o abid e b y reasonabl e Minimu mStandards , pa y an y reasonabl e increas e i n fees , and inves t mone y i n retur

n for ater mcommensurate wit

h wha t wil l b e sought

fi-omth e secon d privatel y owne dFBO . 28 . In th e newl y revise d FA A Airpor t Complianc e Manual , A C 5190.6 B (September

30 , 2009) , th e FAA restate s th e wel l know n polic y tha t th e Sponso r

ha s a federa l obligatio n t o ensure tha t aeronautica

l user s hav e acces s t o airpor t facilitie s o n reasonabl e andno t

xmjusti y discriminator

y terms . 29 . Thi s obligatio n i s state d numerou s times, fo r example : 5.16 . Forma l Complaint : .. . Par t 1 6 cover s matters.. . primaril y involve(s ) financial complianc e an dreasonabl e an d nondiscriminator y access , bu t

include s al l obligation s i n th e grant assurance s an

d property deeds . b . Aeronautica l Acces s t o Facilities . Th e revie w ensure s tha t th e sponso r

wil l make th e airpor

t faciUtie s availabl e to th e publi c o n reasonabl e term s withou t unjus t discrimination , a s require d b y Grant Assurance , 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination . 9.1 . Introductio n a . Federa l Gran t

Obligations . Grant Assuranc e 22 , Economi c Nondiscrimination , require s th e sponso r t o mak e it s aeronautica l facilitie s availabl e t o th e publi c an dit s tenant s o n term s tha t are reasonabl e and withou t imjus t discrimination,. . Th e tenant' s commercial statu s doe s no t reUeve th e sponso r

o f it s obligatio n to ensure th e term s fo

r service s offered t o aeronautical user s ar e fai r an d reasonabl e an dwithou t

unjus t discrimination . Assuranc e 5 , Preservin g Right s an d Power s Th e sponso r

ha s afedera

l obligatio n to ensure tha

t aeronautical user s hav e acces s t o airpor t facilitie s o n reasonabl e and no t xmjusti y discriminator

y terms . Chapte r 10 . Reasonabl e Commercia l Minimu mStandard s

1 0When th e sponso r impose s reasonabl e an d no t unjustl y discriminator

y minimu m standard s fo

r airpor t operations , an d th e sponso r the n denie s acces s o r

servic e base do n thos e standards , th e FA A wil l no t

find th e sponso r

i n isolatio n o f

th e assurance s regardhi g exclusiv e rights and unjus t discrunination . Th e FAA i s als o charge dwit h responsibilit

y fo r monitorin g an d enforcin g complianc e o f

federall y obligate d sponsor s wit h th e provision s prohibitin g exclusiv e rights se t

fort h i n sectio n 30 3 o f

th e Civi l Aeronautic s Ac t o f 1938 , a s amended , an di n sectio n 308(a ) o f th e FA A Act , a s amended . Th e exclusiv e rights prohibitio n wa s designe d t o ensur e tha t airport s maintai n pubh c acces s an d availabUit y t o al l aeronautical user s a t airport s fimded wit

h federa l assistance . Thi s applie s t o a

U commercia

l an d noncommercial aeronautica l user s alike , fi-om private aircraf

t operator s (i.e . genera

l aviation ) t o airline s and al l aeronautical groun dservices . Pag e 1-6 [Emphasi s Added ] 30 . Eac h allegatio n containe d i n paragraph s 1 5 t o 2 5 demonstrate s not only tha t th e MinimumBusines s Term s a s writte n are unreasonable , bu t als o tha t the y improperl y den y COMPLAINANT acces s to th e Airport . THIR D CAUS E O F ACTIO N (I T I S UNJUSTL Y DISCRIMINATOR Y FO RA SPONSO R T O IMPOS E TH E MINIMU M BUSINES S TERM S O N A N FB O WHIL E TH E SPONSO ROPERATE S A COMPETIN G FB O THROUG H A MANAGEMEN T CONTRACT ) 31 . I f th e RESPONDEN T unpose s th e MmimumBusmes s Term s o n tiie remainin g FBO , i t

wil l i n effect

decid e wha

t th e maximu mprice s thi s FB O and it s manage dFB O ca

n charge , whic h effectively destroy s competition . Thes e Minimu m Busmes s Term s woul dgiv e th e RESPONDENT th e tool s to ensur e tha t th e remainin g privatel y owne dFB O i s xmabl e t o maximiz e it s revenues , tha t thi s FB O i s inhibite d firom makin g decision s that

are i n it s ow n interest , and otherwis e create s a n Tmjustl y discriminator

y enviroiraient . 32 . Allowin g asponso r throug h amanagement

company t o compete wit

h privatel y owne dFBO s alway s create s issue s abou t whether competitio n i s reall y fair . Allowin g th e Sponso r

to se t maximiz e prices , approv e other rate s an d charges , an

d decid e 1 1on a n amount o f capital improvement s it s competito r mus t spend , ensure s that

th e privatel y owne dFB O wi

U eventuall y experienc e imjus t discriminatio n a s th e sponso r seek s to maximiz e it s revenu e an d profits , to th e detriment o f it s competitor . FOURT H CAUS E O F ACTIO N (TH E MINIMU M BUSINES S TERM S WER E USED T O DEN Y COMPLAINAN T A LEAS E EXTENSION ) 33 . Upo n Informatio n an d Belief , th e propose d Minimu mBusines s Term s hav e no t bee n formall y adopted , an di f adopte d wU

l similarl y dissuad e th e remainin g privat e FB O fromrenewin g it s lease . 34 . A n investigatio n o f thi s matter

wil l determin e whether

th e Minimu m Busines s Term s wer e ever intende d to b e implemented , an d whether RESPONDENT alway s intende dto take over ownershi p o f

COMPLAINANT' S FBO . 35 . Th e FA

A shoul d reques t

RESPONDENT to tu move r to i t al l communications , includin g bu t no t limite d to , correspondenc e and emails , wit h it s consultant s t

o determin e whether

RESPONDENT wa s actin g i n goo d fait h whe n i t sough t t o impos t th e Minimu mBusines s Terms . 36 . RESPONDENT' S failure t o officiall y adop t an d knpos e thes e Term s i s evidenc e tha

t th e inten t o f thes e propose d Term s wa s t o wrongl y den y COMPLAINAN T a leas e extension . 37 . Th e action s o f

tiie RESPONDENT i n denymg aleas e extensio n t o COMPLAINAN

T wer e unreasonable , unreasonabl y denie d acces s to COMPLAINANT , ar e unjusti y discriminatory , an dcoul d eventuall y create a n exclusiv e right

a t th e Airpor

t i f th e secon dFB O decide s no t t o rene w it s leas e under

thes e Minimu mBusines s Terms . 1 2FIFT H CAUS E O F ACTIO N (TH E MINIMU M BUSINES S TERM S VIOLAT E FA A RULE S REGARDIN G MINIMU M STANDARDS ) 38 . Th e propose dBusmes s Minimu mTerm s ar e predicate d o n th e mistake n notio n tha t FBO s ar e simila

r t o non-aeronautical commercia l concession s an d that

th e RESPONDENT may therefor e se t th e price s charge d for

thei r services . 39 . FBO s are "Aeronautica l Users " wh o provid e service s directi y relate d t o th e operatio n o f

aircraft . See , Order

5190.6b , Chapter

18.3(b) . Th e FAA recognize s tha t a n FB O "i s acommercia

l entit y providin g aeronautica

l service s suc h a s fiieling, maintenance , storage , groundan dflight uistruction , etc. , t o th e public. " See , Orde r 5190.6 B Chapte

r 10(a ) 40 . In establishin g minimu mstandard s applicabl e to aeronautica l user s suc h a s FBOs , RESPONDENT mus t adhere t o state d federa

l polic y an d objective s wit h respec t t o th e reasonabl e an drelevan t rule , namely , tha t

th e standard s applicabl e t o th e on-airpor t sal e o f fiiel ar e reasonabl e give n th e typ e an d locatio n o f

fiiel storag e faciUtie s a

t th e Airport , th e typ e o f

aircraf t and number

o f aircraf t operation s to b e fueled , an d other factor s regardin g th e saf

e an defficien t conduc t o f fuelin g operation s tha

t are specifi c t o th e Airport . 41 . It i s unreasonabl e fo

r aSponso r

to se t apric e fo r service s that

coul d require a n aeronautical servic e provide r either to provid e service s a

t alos s (o r eve n a t n o profit) , o r to breac h it s leas e b y terminatin g it s business . Thi s i s becaus e n o busines s owner coul d 1 3b e reasonabl y expecte dt o agre e t o suc h aconditio n an d thu s suc h aconditio n i s a n unreasonabl e restrictio n o n reasonabl e acces s t o th e Airport . 42 . Th e FA

A Airpor t Complianc e Manual , AC 5190.6 B (September 30 , 2009) , restate s th e wel l know n polic y that th e Sponso r

ha s afedera

l obligatio n to ensure tha t aeronautical user s hav e acces s t o airpor t facilitie s o n reasonabl e and no t unjusti y discriminator

y terms . Whil e th e Sponso r ma y overse e th e pricin g fo r non-aeronautica

l concession s an dma

y gover n thes e concession s any way i t Avishes , a

n FB O i s a

n aeronautical servic e provide r and no t anon-aeronautica

l concession . Non-aeronautical concession s ar e no t

subjec t to th e protection s o f

th e Assurances , bu t

FBO s are subjec t

t o thes e protections . See , Pag e 9-5 . 43 . O n Pag e 13-15 , th e FAA commentin g o n nois e restriction s state s that "a n airpor t restrictio n mus t

no t creat e a n undu e burde n o n interstat e o r foreig n commerce. " Thi s polic y woul dals o appl y t o FBOs . RESPONDENT' S propose d contro l ove r pricin g and fee s ar e unreasonabl e an dcreate a n undu e burde n on th e FBO , whic h i s i n effec t als o a n undu e burde n o n interstat e commerce . 44 . I n Appendi x D , page s 5 1 t o 56 , th e FA A discusse s th e concep t

o f "fair and reasonabl e fees. " In thi s discussio n th e FAA recognize s tha t al l fees , includin g tha

t o f a Sponsor ar e base do n costs . A

t Sectio n 2.4.1. , on pag e 52 , th e FA A recognize s that

a private equit

y owner o f a n airpor t i s entitle d t o areasonabl e rat e o f return . I n Sectio n 4 o f Appendi x O o n pag e 179 , th e FAA reiterate s th e requirement tha t a n "Operator " mus t fiimish service s o n afair , equa l an d no t unjusti y discriminator

y basi s to al l user s thereo f andt o charg e fair , reasonabl e an d no t unjustl y discriminator

y price s fo

r eac h uni t

o f service " with th e understandin g tha t a n Operator

may provid e reasonabl e an d 1 4nondiscriminator y discount s fo

r volum e purchasers . A s Sponsor s are allowe d t o set fee s base do n costs , s o to o mus t aeronautica

l user s suc h a s FBOs . 45 . An y Standardseekin g t o set o r contro l fee s violate th e FAA' s rule s governin g Minimu mStandards . 46 . Unde r

th e Muumu mBusmes s Terms , RESPONDEN T woul d hav e t o determin e wha

t i s "unreasonable. " Thi s determinatio n canno t b e base d o n a

n analysi s o f FB O fiiel price s a

t nearb y airport s becaus e thes e FBO s hav e differen t cos t structures , pa y differen t rents , an dhav e differen

t suppliers . B y fortune . Corpu s Christ i ha s tw o FBO s fromlarg e chain s that

ar e abl e t o negotiate goo d wholesal e pric e base d o n larg e volume , an d are abl e t o reduc e operatin g cost s du e t o th e efficiencie s game d b y larg e we U manage dcompanies . 47 . RESPONDENT ha s n o legal basi s t o deman d tiiat a n FB O charg e an y specifie dprice , o r

forg o profits . A s RESPONDENT ha s n o right t o instruc t

a n FB O ho w to conduc t

it s business , ho w man y employee s t o hire , o r wha t other action s t o take , i t ha s n o right t o fix pricing . SIXT H CAUS E O F ACTIO N

(UNJUS T DISCRIMINATION ) 48 . B y imposin g th e Minimu mBusines s Standard s o n COMPLAINANT , th e RESPONDENT ha s no w obligate d itsel f to impos e thes e Standard s o n Signature Ffigh t Suppor t ("Signature") , th e remainin g private FB O a t th e Airport . 49 . Th e FAA shoul dinvestigat e whether i t i s tiie RESPONDENT' S intent t o impos e thes e same Standard s o n Signature . 50 . Upo n informatio n and beUef , Signature wil l no t

accep t th e Minimu m Busines s Term s an dha s voice dit s oppositio n to thes e Term s to th e RESPONDENT . 1 551 . I f Signahire doe s no t

accep t tiiese Terms , tiie RESPONDENT ma y no t negotiate aleas e renewal wit h Signature . 52 . I f RESPONDENT negotiate s aleas e wit h Signature o n an y term s other tha n th e Minimu mBusines s Terms , i t wU l hav e engage d i n Unjus t

Discriminatio n agains t COMPLAINANT an dcreate da n exclusiv e right. 53 . I f RESPONDENT seek s t o become th e proprietar y exclusiv e provider

o f FB O service s at

th e Airport , i t

coul d d o s o onl y with it s ow n employees . If RESPONDEN

T terminate dth e contrac t wit h th e managemen t

compan y i n order

to assume th e operatio n wit h it s ow n employees , i t

would , upo n informatio n an d belief , breac h it s contractual obUgation s with th e management compan y hire d t o manag e RESPONDENT owne dFBO . 54 . A s eac h o f

thes e contingencie s raise s materia l questions , th e FAA shoul d investigate th e intent , plan s an daction s o f RESPONDENT . 55 . Regardles s o f

th e finduigs, i t

i s obviou s tiiat tiie RESPONDENT wil l hav e unjustl y discriminate dagains t COMPLAINAN

T and may hav e se t

i n motio n aplan t o create a n exclusiv e right

a t th e Airport . RELIE F SOUGH T COMPLAINANT seek s adeterminatio n providin g th e following : 1 : A finding tha

t th e Minimu mBusuies s Term s ar e unreasonable . 2 : A finding tha

t th e Minimu mBusines s Term s create d unreasonabl e entr y requirement s a

t th e Airport . 3 : A finding that

i f thes e Minimn

mBusines s Term s are imposed , th e RESPONDENT woul db e unjustl y discriminatin g agains t th e remainin g FBO , which , 1 6separate andapar t fromal l other

issues , render s thes e Minimu mBusines s Term s unjusti y discriminatory . 4 . A finding tha

t th e Minimu mBusines s Term s wer e mean t t o den y COMPLAINAN

T acces s t o tiie Ahrport . 5 . A finding tha t

th e Minimu mBusines s Term s violat e th e FAA' s guideline s o n Minimu mStandards . 6 . A findin g tha

t th e RESPONDENT ha s unjusti y discriminate d agains t COMPLAINANT , ha s se t

i n motio n action s whic h wil l either create a n exclxisive right, a

n improperl y constitute dProprietar y Exclusive , o r

som e other

improper

restrain t o n competition . 7 . A n Orde r

requirin g th e RESPONDENT t o negotiat e aleas e extensio n t o COMPLAINAN

T o n reasonabl e an d no t

unjustl y discriminator

y terms , and al l other

jus t an dproper

relie f a s t o th e FAA seem s jus t

an d proper . Dated : Jericho , Ne w Yor

k October 15 , 201 0 I hereb y certif

y tha t th e Complaint

i s base d o n my knowledg e an d informatio n and belief , th e Complaint

i s (1 ) consisten t

wit h Par t 1 6 Rules , (2 ) i s warrante d b y existin g law , an d (3 ) i s no t itnpose dfo

r an y improper

purpos e suc h a s t o haras s o r delay or needles s increas e in th e cos t

o f a n administrativ e process . I als o certif y that th e COMPLAINANT mad e agoo dfait

h effor t t o resolv e al l outstandin g issue s with th e RESPONDENT an d ha s exhauste dal l other

remedies . \ 

# "^..^ O t ^ Leonard D . Kirsch , Esq . McBree n & Kopko 1 7Attorney s fo r COMPLAINANT Mercur y Ai r Center-Corpu s Christi , Inc. , D/B/ A Atianti c Aviatio n 50 0 Nort h Broadwa

y Jericho , Ne w Yor

k 1175 3 (516)364-109 5 Fa x (516 ) 364-061 2 To : City o f

Corpu s Christ

i 120 1 LeopardSt . Corpu s Christi , T

X 78401 , Corpu s Christ

i Intemational Airpor

t 1000 Intemational Driv e Corpu s Christi , T X 78406 .

1 8