BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., 

Complainant, 

v. 

THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK 

AND NEW JERSEY, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. FAA-16-14-13 

DECLARATION OF ROBERTS. SPAN IN SUPPORT OF 

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.'S ANSWER TO THE 

PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY'S 

MO'l'IGN-FBR-SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to: 

Marc L. Warren 

Keith J. Harrison 

Gerald F. Murphy 

Steven J. Seiden 

CROWELL & MORING LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

(202) 624-2500 

mwarren@crowell.com 

Robert S. Span 

Alan K. Steinbrecher 

Sophy Chen 

STEINBRECHER & SPAN LLP 

1155 F Street, NW, Suite 1050 

Washington, DC 20004 

(202) 559-8680 

rspan@steinbrecherspan.com 

Counsel for United Airlines, Inc. 
DECLARATION OF ROBERTS. SPAN 

I, Robert S. Span, declare as follows: 

1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Steinbrecher & Span LLP, 

counsel ofrecord for Complainant United Airlines, Inc. ("United"). I submit this 

Declaration in support of United's Answer To The Port Authority Of New York And 

New Jersey's Motion For Summary Judgment ("Answer"). The statements in this 

declaration are based upon my personal knowledge and upon review of information 

contained in business records of United. 

2. In 2003, negotiations were underway for new operating agreements at 

John F. Kennedy International Airport ("JFK") and LaGuardia Airport ("LGA"). 

The so-called "Dewey Lease," which governed rates and charges at JFK and LGA, 

and had been in effect since 1953, was due to expire at the end of 2003. Thus, from 

2003, and continuing until almost the end of 2004, a committee representing the 

airlines operating at JFK and LGA met with the Port Authority to negotiate what 

became known as the "Freedom Agreement" (in honor of those who lost their lives 

on September 11, 2001). Among other things, the Freedom Agreement established 

new methodologies for the flight fees at JFK and LGA. These times were also 

financially difficult for the airline industry, as the period following the tragic events 

of September 11 and the war in Iraq had depressed passenger demand for air 

travel. 

3. Exhibit 00 to United's Answer is a copy of a letter dated April 9, 2003, 

from Lawrence W. Kellner to William DeCota. 

1 
4. Exhibit PP to United's Answer is a copy of a letter dated April 7, 2003, 

from Holden Shannon to Anthony Coscia and Michael DeCotiis. 

5. Exhibit QQ to United's Answer is a copy of a letter dated March 16, 

2004, from Nene Foxhall to Robert F. Lurie. 

6. Exhibit RR to United's Answer is a copy of a letter I sent on behalf of 

Continental Airlines, Inc. ("Continental") to the Port Authority on October 11, 2005. 

7. Exhibit SS to United's Answer is a copy of a letter I received from the 

Port Authority dated October 17, 2005. 

8. Exhibit TT to United's Answer is a copy of a letter I wrote to the Port 

Authority on November 11, 2005. 

9. Exhibit UU to United's Answer is a copy of a letter I wrote to the Port 

Authority on December 15, 2005. 

10. Exhibit VV to United's Answer is a copy of the Port Authority's 

response dated December 23, 2005 

11. Exhibit WW to United's Answer is a copy of a letter I wrote to the Port 

Authority on January 11, 2006. The Port Authority did not provide the information 

I requested in Exhibit WW. 

12. Exhibit XX to United's Answer is a copy of the Port Authority's letter 

dated January 18, 2006, in which the Port Authority referred Continental's 

information requests to the Port Authority Freedom of Information ("FOI") 

Administrator. 

2 
13. In March 2006, I received the FOI responses, which turned out to be 

little more than standard information that had been supplied previously to the 

airlines at EWR. 

14. Exhibit YY to United's Answer is a copy of a letter I wrote to the Port 

Authority on April 21, 2006. 

15. Exhibit ZZ to United's Answer is a copy of the Port Authority's letter to 

me dated May 3, 2006. 

16. Exhibit AAA to United's Answer is a copy of a letter I wrote to the Port 

Authority on May 19, 2006. 

17. Exhibit EBB to United's Answer is a copy of the Port Authority's letter 

to me dated June 5, 2006. 

18. On June 8, 2006, a meeting was held between representatives of 

Continental and the Port Authority. At that meeting, Continental again asked for 

details about the calculation of the EWR Flight Fee and the amount and sources of 

airfield and airport revenue surpluses. The Port Authority again reiterated its 

position that the terms of a written lease agreement trumped federal requirements 

and that Continental was not entitled to the requested information. The Port 

Authority also said, however, that it would consider the requests further and 

respond shortly. 

19. Between June 8 and July 10, 2006, I did not receive anything further 

from the Port Authority. Exhibit CCC to United's Answer is a copy of an e-mail I 

3 
sent to the Port Authority on July 10, 2006, and an e-mail I received from the Port 

Authority in response. 

20. Exhibit DDD to United's Answer is a copy of a letter I sent to the Port 

Authority on September 22, 2006, having heard nothing since the July 10 email. 

21. I never received a response to my September 22, 2006 letter. 

22. The Port Authority claims that it does not know how United calculated 

the 38% mark-up. Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, at 

25. The calculation is based on the Port Authority's own documents and can be 

done using the numbers contained in the 2014 Flight Fee calculation (Ex. 2 to the 

Declaration of Joseph Garcia, submitted in support ofthe Motion). The PAF Factor 

charge was $4.59. Multiplying that charge by the total maximum takeoff weight 

yields a sum of $147,418,549. That amount is the total revenue received by the Port 

Authority from the airlines for this portion of the EWR Flight Fee. Total airfield 

costs included in the PAF Factor were $106,776,578. Revenues were thus 

$40,641,971, or 38% greater, than costs. The same calculation can be applied to the 

components of the 2013 PAF Factor (Ex. 1 to Garcia Decl.) with the same result- a 

38% mark-up. 

23. Accordingly, any cost included in the P AF Factor component of the 

Flight Fee at EWR apparently is then marked up through the formula by 38%. 

24. A similar calculation on the Flight Fee component known as the 

Airport Services Charge Factor results in a14% mark-up above actual costs. 

4 
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of 

America that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed this 26th day of March, 2015 at Los Angeles, California. 

' 

5 

/J 

/rM