I (^ - (0 - ^"S 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

In re the Complaint of 

MERCURY AIR CENTER-CORPUS CHRISTI, INC., 

d/b/a ATLANTIC AVL\TION 

355 Pinson Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78406 

COMPLAINANT, 

-againstCITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI 

RESPONDENT. 

Pursuant to Part 16 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations 

PART 16 COMPLAINT 

Filed by: 

Leonard D. Kirsch, Esq. 

McBreen & Kopko 

Attorneys for COMPLAINANT 

Mercury Air Center-Corpvis Christi, Inc., 

D/B/A Atlantic Aviation 

500 North Broadway 

Jericho, New York 11753 

(516) 364-1095 

Fax (516) 364-0612 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVL^TION ADMINISTRATION 

In re the Complaint of 

MERCURY AIR CENTER-CORPUS CHRISTI, INC., 

d/b/a ATLANTIC AVIATION 

355 Pinson Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78406 

COMPLAINANT, 

-againstT^ 

CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI 

RESPONDENT. 

Pursuant to Part 16 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations 

COMPLAINT 

PARTIES: 

1. The COMPLAINANT is MERCURY AIR CENTER-CORPUS CHRISTI, 

INC., doing business as ATLANTIC AVIATION ("COMPLAINANT"), a corporation 

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, with its corporate offices at 

6504 International Parkway, Piano, TX 75093, and an airport office at 355 Pinson Drive, 

Corpus Christi, TX 78406. COMPLAINANT is part of the ATLANTIC AVL\TION 

group of Fixed Based Operations ("FBOs"), all of which are under the common ownership 

of MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY LLC through a series of subsidiary 

and affiliated companies. 

2. The RESPONDENT is the CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI 

("RESPONDENT"), a governmental entity organized and existing pursuant to legislation 
by the State of Texas, with offices at 1201 Leopard St. 

Corpus Christi, TX 78401, and an airport authority office at Corpus Christi International 

Airport, 1000 Intemational Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78406 ("Airport Authority"). The 

Airport Authority manages Corpus Christi Intemational Airport ("CRP" or "Airport"). 

3. As a recipient of federal funding under the Airport Improvement Program 

(AIP), the RESPONDENT is obligated to comply with the terms of Federal Aviation 

Administration ("FAA") grant agreements, including the standard sponsor assurances and 

any advisory circiilars, rules and regulations incorporated by reference in those 

assurances. 

JURISDICTION: 

4. This Complaint alleges violations of the following statutes, regulations. 

Orders and Circulars by the RESPONDENT: 

Section 511 (a) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, 

49 us e section 47107(a); section 308(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as 

amended, 49 U.S.C. section 40103(e); and Assurance No. 22 (Economic 

Nondiscrimination) of the "Airport Assurances" dated March 2005, as supplemented by 

Section 2 of Advisory Circular 50/5190-6, dated January 4, 2007, and by Chapters 9 and 11 

of the FAA Airport Compliance Manual 5190.6b, dated September 30,2009. 

PRE-COMPLAINT RESOLUTION EFFORTS: 

5. Prior to the making of this Complaint, COMPLAINANT engaged in 

substantial and reasonable good faith efforts to resolve the matters herein complained of 

through informal means, including drafting for Respondent's review a Part 13 Complaint. 
As time has become of the essence, and there appear to be no reasonable prospects for 

timely resolution of the dispute through informal means, COMPLAINANT is filing this 

Part 16 Complaint. RESPONDENT will acknowledge that COMPLAINANT did seek a 

meeting with counsel present to discuss this matter, but RESPONDENT did not agree to 

this meeting. 

6. COMPLAINANT held off filing this Complaint in the hope that 

RESPONDENT would abandon its quest to engage a management company to manage a 

RESPONDENT-owned FBO and instead extend its lease. It chose to file this Complaint 

only after RESPONDENT decided to engage a management company. 

7. The issues raised herein are ripe for review and consideration. These issues 

exist at Airports throughout the U.S. 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: 

8. Contemporaneously with the filing of this Complaint, COMPLAINANT is 

filing documentation supporting its allegations. Annexed hereto as Exhibit 1 is the second 

and first Drafts of Minimum Business Terms (the first draft was included with draft 

Minimum Standards and distributed with a letter dated August 4, 2009). Aimexed hereto 

as Exhibit 2 is correspondence dated April 26, 2010 from COMPLAINANT requesting to 

meet with RESPONDENT to discuss the matter. 

9. Annexed hereto as Exhibit 3 is a copy of a draft Part 13 Complaint, which 

was attached to a letter dated June 9, 2010, sent in a last effort to dissuade the 

RESPONDENT. Annexed hereto as Exhibit 4 is the COMPLAINANT'S lease. Armexed 

hereto as Exhibit 5 is other correspondence between the parties on these issues. Other 

documents which are annexed hereto, are described and Hsted below. 
ISSUES PRESENTED 

10. The issues presented by this Complaint are: 

1. Whether the RESPONDENT'S proposed Minimum Business Terms are 

reasonable, as required by Assurance 22 and Advisory Circular 150/5190-7. 

2. Whether the RESPONDENT'S proposed Minimum Business Terms constitute 

unreasonable access requirements as they (a) limit* retail prices, (b) require an 

unspecified level of investment over a fixed-term lease, (c) allow the 

RESPONDENT to "approve all fiiel pricing pohcies and rates by the FBO and the 

FBO will be required to sell the fiiel at a price no greater than the approved price"; 

(d) allow the RESPONDENT to set service fees charged for commercial airline 

ground handling; (e) prohibit FBOs firom recovering costs for utilities, taxes, 

insurance, and other operating expenses, and charging a profit on subleases; and 

(f) impose a landing fee on Airport-based aircraft tenants. 

3. Whether it is unjustly discriminatory for a sponsor to impose the above terms on 

an FBO while the sponsor operates a competing FBO through a management 

contract. 

4. Whether the indirect intent of the proposed Minimum Business Terms was to 

threaten commercially ^macceptable business tetms so that COMPLAINANT'S 

refiisal to accept these terms could be used as justification for the 

' It is unknown whether the RESPONDENT still plans to impose these Minimum Business Tenns or used 

them as a way to terminate negotiations with COMPLAINANT by threatening an unacceptable business 

environment. Had COMPLAINANT agreed to a lease with these terms, it would have been unable to 

complain about them later. 

4 
RESPONDENT'S termination of negotiations over a lease renewal, thereby 

denying COMPLAINANT reasonable access to the Airport. 

5. Whether the Minimum Business Terms violate FAA rules regarding Minimum 

Standards. 

6. Whether RESPONDENT has unjustiy discrimmated against COMPLAINANT in 

favor of the remaining FBO, Signature Flight Center. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM: 

11. COMPLAINANT purchased the assets of the Mercury Air FBO chain in 

2007, including the governing lease ("FBO Lease"). The FBO Lease was to expire on 

October 14,2009. 

12. On or about August 26, 2009, the proposed Minimum Business Terms 

were first presented at an Airport Board Meeting. Shortly thereafter the RESPONDENT 

agreed to extend the FBO Lease untU October 14, 2010. The FBO Lease was 

subsequentiy extended imtil January 14,2011. 

13. From August 2009 to March 26, 2010, COMPLAINANT met with, wrote 

to and otherwise attempted to dissuade the RESPONDENT firom adopting the Minimum 

Business Terms. However on March, 26, 2010, in a letter, annexed hereto as Exhibit 6. 

RESPONDENT informed COMPLAINANT that the discussions were closed and no 

fiirther clarification was necessary. On May 19, 2010, RESPONDENT'S position was 

publicly confirmed by the Akport Board as shown on the Board Agenda (annexed hereto 

as Exhibit 7) The proposed Minimum Business Terms have not been officially adopted 

by RESPONDENT. On May 27, 2010 and again on June 18, 2010, the RESPONDENT 
stated that it was "ceasing" negotiations with COMPLAINANT over a new lease, annexed 

hereto as Exhibit 8. 

14. On July 15, 2010, RESPONDENT issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP") 

seeking proposals to manage a RESPONDENT-owned FBO. A copy of this RFP is 

annexed hereto as Exhibit 9. On August 5, 2010, COMPLAINANT sent a letter to the 

RESPONDENT declining to take part in this process, annexed hereto as Exhibit 10. 

Numerous other FBO chains, owners and otiier business entities refijsed to submit 

proposals because, upon information and belief, the RFP was perceived as an effort by 

RESPONDENT to force the closure of a well regarded FBO and weaken the FBO 

industry. Upon information and belief only one company responded to the RFP, and this 

company was selected to manage the FBO. 

STATEMENT OF CLAIM 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

(UNREASONABLENESS) 

15. Advisory Circular 150/5190-7 Section 1.1 (PoUcy) states in part: 

The airport sponsor of a federally obligated airport agrees to make available the opportunity 

to engage in commercial aerotiautical activities by persons, firms, or corporations that meet 

reasonable minimnm standards established by the airport sponsor, The airport sponsor's 

purpose in in^josing standards is to ensure a safe, efficient and adeqxiate level of operation 

and services is offered to the public. Such standards must be reasonable and not unjustly 

discriminatory, [emphasis added] 

16. The Minimum Business Terms are not reasonable. RESPONDENT, as the 

operator of the Airport has oversight authority to ensure that the fees charged by 

aeronautical suppliers are "reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory." See, Order 

5190.6B Chapter 18.2(a). RESPONDENT has no right to veto, lunit, or otherwise 

approve pricing set by FBOs, including fuel prices and service fees to commercial and 

charter customers. Not only is such right an improper exercise of governmental power, 

6 
but such right would restrict rather than promote competition and make it impossible for 

FBOs to successfiilly operate at the Airport. 

17. FBOs are required by the proposed Minimum Business Terms to make a 

capital investment of at least $100,000, but the exact amount will not be determined until 

after a lease with a five year term is executed. These Minimum Bvisiness Terms require 

FBOs to agree to invest capital without knowing how much capital wUl be required and 

without knowing whether the lease term will be long enough to allow the FBO to fiiUy 

amortize its investment. It is unreasonable to require an investment which cannot be 

amortized against revenues and which wiU allow a reasonable busuaess profit. Chapter 12 

of 5190.6B describes a test, to wit: 

(3). Term. Does the term exceed a period of years that is reasonably necessary to 

amortize a tenant's investment? Does the lease provide for multiple options to the term 

with no increased compensation to the sponsor? Most tenant ground leases of 30 to 35 

years are sufficient to retire a tenant's initial financing and provide a reasonable return 

for the tenant's development of major facilities. Leases that exceed 50 years may be 

considered a disposal of the property in that the term of the lease wUl Hkely exceed the 

usefiil life of the structures erected on the property. FAA offices should not consent to 

proposed lease terms that exceed 50 years. 

18. Under the Minimum Business Terms, FBOs are not allowed to charge 

more than the rent they are currentiy paying RESPONDENT hi any sublease. The 

inability of an FBO to pass on all costs, including but not limited to utilities, taxes, 

insurance and other operating expenses, is unduly restrictive and unreasonable. 

19. Those provisions of the Minimum Business Terms with regard to the 

setting of prices run contrary to principles of fair competition, as well as to the stated 

policies of the FAA, including but not limited to, the Sponsor/Grant Assurances. 

RESPONDENT sought/seeks the right to approve all fiiel pricing policies and rates by the 

FBO and the FBO will be required to sell the fuel at a price no greater than the approved 
price. While an Airport Sponsor may require that its aeronautical users charge reasonable 

and not unjustiy discriminatory rates and fees, allowing a Sponsor to assume the right to 

approve all prices is on its face unreasonable. 

20. The Mmimum Bushiess Terms grant RESPONDENT not only tiie right to 

review the rates charged by FBOs but will also grant RESPONDENT the right, in its sole 

and absolute discretion, to set such fixeling and other service fees. However, it is universal 

industry practice for the prices for the aeronautical services offered by FBOs to be 

determuied by taking into account a variety of commercial factors, including the direct 

and indirect costs and expenses in providing the goods or services (e.g., materials, goods, 

wages, overhead, insurance, home office, etc.) m relation to the relative demand and 

availability fi-om alternate sources for the same goods or services at the Airport. Under 

the Minimum Business Terms, RESPONDENT assumes the right to approve and set 

prices without any regard or measure of each FBO's cost of doing business, fiiel 

throughput, customer volumes, or any other busmess justification. Such interference with 

the fi-ee market forces is tantamount to price fixing and can be characterized as per se 

unlawftil imder federal anti-trust laws. 15 U.S.C. Sec 1. Such unlawfiil actions are per se 

unreasonable. 

21. The Minimum Business Terms will result in horizontal price fixing among 

the FBOs at the Auport in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. 15 U.S.C. Sec 

45(a). Such unlawfid actions arc per se unreasonable. 

22. The setting of fees that FBOs may charge will inhibit rather than promote 

fair and open competition to provide hangar, fiieling and other aeronautical services to 

general aviation owners and operators at the Airport. The impact of this Standard can also 
have far-reaching effects by driving general aviation busuiess firom the Airport to other 

nearby fields. Instead of increasing the business incentive to distinguish one brand and 

level of service, the Standards will work to eliminate any business reason to raise the 

quality of services, lower prices, and otherwise compete for new business since the fees 

each FBO can charge would in effect be set or at least limited by the RESPONDENT. 

23. COMPLAINTANT is one of two FBOs at the Airport. Currentiy, aurcraft 

owners can seek competitive prices and negotiate for aeronautical services firom two of the 

largest national FBO chains present at the Airport. RESPONDENT, m effect has 

demanded the right to set or at least limit service fees for commercial airline ground 

handling. This demand if unplemented would limit competition and is thus unreasonable. 

24. The RESPONDENT'S requirement to charge landing fees to Airport based 

aurcraft tenants is also unreasonable and will result in divertmg general aurcraft owners to 

other nearby airports. 

25. Advisory Curcular 150/5190-7 Section 1.2 (d) 5 states in part: 

(5) Ensure standards provide the opportunity for newcomers who meet the minimum 

standards to offer their aeronautical services within the market demand for such services. 

The Minimum Business Terms do the exact opposite. They are meant to dissuade 

COMPLAINANT and any other FBO fi-om seeking to do busmess m Corpus Christi 

firom offering their services. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

(UNREASONABLE DENIAL OF ACCESS) 

26. COMPLAINANT repeats each and every allegation contained in 

paragraphs 15 to 25 since each of these actions and omissions constitute "unreasonable 

denial of access." 
27. COMPLAINANT seeks to remam an FBO at tiie Airport, is willing to 

abide by reasonable Minimum Standards, pay any reasonable increase in fees, and invest 

money in return for a term commensurate with what will be sought fi-om the second 

privately owned FBO. 

28. In the newly revised FAA Airport Compliance Manual, AC 5190.6B 

(September 30, 2009), the FAA restates the well known policy that the Sponsor has a 

federal obligation to ensure that aeronautical users have access to airport facilities on 

reasonable and not xmjustiy discriminatory terms. 

29. This obligation is stated numerous times, for example: 

5.16. Formal Complaint: ... Part 16 covers matters... primarily involve(s) 

financial compliance and reasonable and nondiscriminatory access, but includes 

all obligations in the grant assurances and property deeds. 

b. Aeronautical Access to Facilities. The review ensures that the sponsor will 

make the airport faciUties available to the public on reasonable terms without 

unjust discrimination, as required by Grant Assurance, 22, Economic 

Nondiscrimination. 

9.1. Introduction 

a. Federal Grant Obligations. Grant Assurance 22, Economic 

Nondiscrimination, requires the sponsor to make its aeronautical facilities 

available to the public and its tenants on terms that are reasonable and without 

imjust discrimination,.. 

The tenant's commercial status does not reUeve the sponsor of its obligation to 

ensure the terms for services offered to aeronautical users are fair and reasonable 

and without unjust discrimination. 

Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers 

The sponsor has a federal obligation to ensure that aeronautical users have access 

to airport facilities on reasonable and not xmjustiy discriminatory terms. 

Chapter 10. Reasonable Commercial Minimum Standards 

10 
When the sponsor imposes reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory minimum 

standards for airport operations, and the sponsor then denies access or service 

based on those standards, the FAA will not find the sponsor in isolation of the 

assurances regardhig exclusive rights and unjust discrunination. 

The FAA is also charged with responsibility for monitoring and enforcing 

compliance of federally obligated sponsors with the provisions prohibiting 

exclusive rights set forth in section 303 of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as 

amended, and in section 308(a) of the FAA Act, as amended. The exclusive 

rights prohibition was designed to ensure that airports maintain pubhc access and 

availabUity to all aeronautical users at airports fimded with federal assistance. 

This applies to aU commercial and noncommercial aeronautical users alike, fi-om 

private aircraft operators (i.e. general aviation) to airlines and all aeronautical 

ground services. Page 1-6 [Emphasis Added] 

30. Each allegation contained in paragraphs 15 to 25 demonstrates not only 

that the Minimum Business Terms as written are unreasonable, but also that they 

improperly deny COMPLAINANT access to the Airport. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

(IT IS UNJUSTLY DISCRIMINATORY FOR A SPONSOR 

TO IMPOSE THE MINIMUM BUSINESS TERMS ON 

AN FBO WHILE THE SPONSOR OPERATES A 

COMPETING FBO THROUGH A MANAGEMENT CONTRACT) 

31. If the RESPONDENT unposes the Mmimum Busmess Terms on tiie 

remaining FBO, it will in effect decide what the maximum prices this FBO and its 

managed FBO can charge, which effectively destroys competition. These Minimum 

Busmess Terms would give the RESPONDENT the tools to ensure that the remaining 

privately owned FBO is xmable to maximize its revenues, that this FBO is inhibited firom 

making decisions that are in its own interest, and otherwise creates an Tmjustly 

discriminatory enviroiraient. 

32. Allowing a sponsor through a management company to compete with 

privately owned FBOs always creates issues about whether competition is really fair. 

Allowing the Sponsor to set maximize prices, approve other rates and charges, and decide 

11 
on an amount of capital improvements its competitor must spend, ensures that the 

privately owned FBO wiU eventually experience imjust discrimination as the sponsor 

seeks to maximize its revenue and profits, to the detriment of its competitor. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(THE MINIMUM BUSINESS TERMS WERE USED 

TO DENY COMPLAINANT A LEASE EXTENSION) 

33. Upon Information and Belief, the proposed Minimum Business Terms have 

not been formally adopted, and if adopted wUl similarly dissuade the remaining private 

FBO from renewing its lease. 

34. An investigation of this matter will determine whether the Minimum 

Business Terms were ever intended to be implemented, and whether RESPONDENT 

always intended to take over ownership of COMPLAINANT'S FBO. 

35. The FAA should request RESPONDENT to tum over to it all 

communications, including but not limited to, correspondence and emails, with its 

consultants to determine whether RESPONDENT was acting in good faith when it sought 

to impost the Minimum Business Terms. 

36. RESPONDENT'S failure to officially adopt and knpose these Terms is 

evidence that the intent of these proposed Terms was to wrongly deny COMPLAINANT a 

lease extension. 

37. The actions of tiie RESPONDENT in denymg a lease extension to 

COMPLAINANT were unreasonable, unreasonably denied access to COMPLAINANT, 

are unjustiy discriminatory, and could eventually create an exclusive right at the Airport if 

the second FBO decides not to renew its lease under these Minimum Business Terms. 

12 
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(THE MINIMUM BUSINESS TERMS VIOLATE FAA 

RULES REGARDING MINIMUM STANDARDS) 

38. The proposed Busmess Minimum Terms are predicated on the mistaken 

notion that FBOs are similar to non-aeronautical commercial concessions and that the 

RESPONDENT may therefore set the prices charged for their services. 

39. FBOs are "Aeronautical Users" who provide services directiy related to the 

operation of aircraft. See, Order 5190.6b, Chapter 18.3(b). The FAA recognizes that an 

FBO "is a commercial entity providing aeronautical services such as fiieling, maintenance, 

storage, ground and flight uistruction, etc., to the public." See, Order 5190.6B Chapter 

10(a) 

40. In establishing minimum standards applicable to aeronautical users such as 

FBOs, RESPONDENT must adhere to stated federal policy and objectives with respect to 

the reasonable and relevant rule, namely, that the standards applicable to the on-airport 

sale of fiiel are reasonable given the type and location of fiiel storage faciUties at the 

Airport, the type of aircraft and number of aircraft operations to be fueled, and other 

factors regarding the safe and efficient conduct of fueling operations that are specific to 

the Airport. 

41. It is unreasonable for a Sponsor to set a price for services that could require 

an aeronautical service provider either to provide services at a loss (or even at no profit), 

or to breach its lease by terminating its business. This is because no business owner could 

13 
be reasonably expected to agree to such a condition and thus such a condition is an 

unreasonable restriction on reasonable access to the Airport. 

42. The FAA Airport Compliance Manual, AC 5190.6B (September 30, 2009), 

restates the well known policy that the Sponsor has a federal obligation to ensure that 

aeronautical users have access to airport facilities on reasonable and not unjustiy 

discriminatory terms. While the Sponsor may oversee the pricing for non-aeronautical 

concessions and may govern these concessions any way it Avishes, an FBO is an 

aeronautical service provider and not a non-aeronautical concession. Non-aeronautical 

concessions are not subject to the protections of the Assurances, but FBOs are subject to 

these protections. See, Page 9-5. 

43. On Page 13-15, the FAA commenting on noise restrictions states that "an 

airport restriction must not create an undue burden on interstate or foreign commerce." 

This policy would also apply to FBOs. RESPONDENT'S proposed control over pricing 

and fees are unreasonable and create an undue burden on the FBO, which is in effect also 

an undue burden on interstate commerce. 

44. In Appendix D, pages 51 to 56, the FAA discusses the concept of "fair and 

reasonable fees." In this discussion the FAA recognizes that all fees, including that of a 

Sponsor are based on costs. At Section 2.4.1., on page 52, the FAA recognizes that a 

private equity owner of an airport is entitled to a reasonable rate of return. In Section 4 of 

Appendix O on page 179, the FAA reiterates the requirement that an "Operator" must 

fiimish services on a fair, equal and not unjustiy discriminatory basis to all users thereof 

and to charge fair, reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory prices for each unit of 

service" with the understanding that an Operator may provide reasonable and 

14 
nondiscriminatory discounts for volume purchasers. As Sponsors are allowed to set fees 

based on costs, so too must aeronautical users such as FBOs. 

45. Any Standard seeking to set or control fees violate the FAA's rules 

governing Minimum Standards. 

46. Under the Muumum Busmess Terms, RESPONDENT would have to 

determine what is "unreasonable." This determination cannot be based on an analysis of 

FBO fiiel prices at nearby airports because these FBOs have different cost structures, pay 

different rents, and have different suppliers. By fortune. Corpus Christi has two FBOs 

from large chains that are able to negotiate good wholesale price based on large volume, 

and are able to reduce operating costs due to the efficiencies gamed by large weU 

managed companies. 

47. RESPONDENT has no legal basis to demand tiiat an FBO charge any 

specified price, or forgo profits. As RESPONDENT has no right to instruct an FBO how 

to conduct its business, how many employees to hire, or what other actions to take, it has 

no right to fix pricing. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(UNJUST DISCRIMINATION) 

48. By imposing the Minimum Business Standards on COMPLAINANT, the 

RESPONDENT has now obligated itself to impose these Standards on Signature Ffight 

Support ("Signature"), the remaining private FBO at the Airport. 

49. The FAA should investigate whether it is tiie RESPONDENT'S intent to 

impose these same Standards on Signature. 

50. Upon information and beUef, Signature will not accept the Minimum 

Business Terms and has voiced its opposition to these Terms to the RESPONDENT. 

15 
51. If Signahire does not accept tiiese Terms, tiie RESPONDENT may not 

negotiate a lease renewal with Signature. 

52. If RESPONDENT negotiates a lease with Signature on any terms other 

than the Minimum Business Terms, it wUl have engaged in Unjust Discrimination against 

COMPLAINANT and created an exclusive right. 

53. If RESPONDENT seeks to become the proprietary exclusive provider of 

FBO services at the Airport, it could do so only with its own employees. If 

RESPONDENT terminated the contract with the management company in order to 

assume the operation with its own employees, it would, upon information and belief, 

breach its contractual obUgations with the management company hired to manage 

RESPONDENT owned FBO. 

54. As each of these contingencies raises material questions, the FAA should 

investigate the intent, plans and actions of RESPONDENT. 

55. Regardless of the finduigs, it is obvious tiiat tiie RESPONDENT will have 

unjustly discriminated against COMPLAINANT and may have set in motion a plan to 

create an exclusive right at the Airport. 

RELIEF SOUGHT 

COMPLAINANT seeks a determination providing the following: 

1: A finding that the Minimum Busuiess Terms are unreasonable. 

2: A finding that the Minimum Business Terms created unreasonable entry 

requirements at the Airport. 

3: A finding that if these Minimnm Business Terms are imposed, the 

RESPONDENT would be unjustly discriminating against the remaining FBO, which, 

16 
separate and apart from all other issues, renders these Minimum Business Terms unjustiy 

discriminatory. 

4. A finding that the Minimum Business Terms were meant to deny 

COMPLAINANT access to tiie Ahrport. 

5. A finding that the Minimum Business Terms violate the FAA's guidelines 

on Minimum Standards. 

6. A finding that the RESPONDENT has unjustiy discriminated against 

COMPLAINANT, has set in motion actions which will either create an exclxisive right, an 

improperly constituted Proprietary Exclusive, or some other improper restraint on 

competition. 

7. An Order requiring the RESPONDENT to negotiate a lease extension to 

COMPLAINANT on reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory terms, and all other just 

and proper relief as to the FAA seems just and proper. 

Dated: Jericho, New York 

October 15, 2010 

I hereby certify that the Complaint is based on my knowledge and information and belief, 

the Complaint is (1) consistent with Part 16 Rules, (2) is warranted by existing law, and 

(3) is not itnposed for any improper purpose such as to harass or delay or needless 

increase in the cost of an administrative process. I also certify that the COMPLAINANT 

made a good faith effort to resolve all outstanding issues with the RESPONDENT and has 

exhausted all other remedies. 

\ 

"^..^O t ^ 

Leonard D. Kirsch, Esq. 

McBreen & Kopko 

17 
Attorneys for COMPLAINANT 

Mercury Air Center-Corpus Christi, Inc., 

D/B/A Atiantic Aviation 

500 North Broadway 

Jericho, New York 11753 

(516)364-1095 

Fax (516) 364-0612 

To: City of Corpus Christi 

1201 Leopard St. 

Corpus Christi, TX 78401, 

Corpus Christi Intemational Airport 

1000 Intemational Drive 

Corpus Christi, TX 78406. 

18