# FLIGHTLEVEL AV I AT I 0 N

J>h: 781-769-8680 Fax: 781-769-7180 www.flightlevelnorwood.corn www.flightlt>velaviation.com

VIA HA D DELIVERY January 29. 

### :w 15 1\omood Airport Commission (NAC) c /o \llr. Russ Maguire. Airport Manager 125 Access Road Norwood. MA 02062 Re: Recent Developments at Norwood Memorial Airport Supplement I to January 20. 2015 Submission BEH Blocking Flightlevel Fuel Farm Dear Mr . Chairman : On January 27 , 2015, a Flight Level was fully mobilited (with all available equipment and personnel) clearing nearly I 0 acres of Airport property ofthe 2+ feet of snow that fell during the massive blizzard on Monday and Tuesday of this week, Boston Executive Helicopters was busy combining the snow from its leasehold (lot F) with the

**~nO\\** fall on FlightLevel's leaseholds (lot G and lot II). to create a 6+ foot wall of snow across nearly the entire length of Flight Level"s LotH (the location of FlightLevel's fuel farm- photos are anached). This massive nO\\> bank nu\\> blocks

**acce~s** to FlightLevel" fueling sy tern, rendering it impossible for FlightLevel to receive fuel deliveries at the Airport . Since FlightLevel will require a load within the next day or \\\0 to h.ccp its

**bu~ines~** going. it

**ha~** literally been forced to contract a third-party to remove the snow. In addition to being the most blatant and notorious trespass by BEll to date (and the most heinous example of BEH undermining FlightLcvcl both financially and operationall)), this serves as the pivotal examr.Je ofhow and win the AC cannot enfranchise BEH to operate as a second FBO at Norwood Memorial Airport . First, the fact that BEH constructed its facility such that it cannot operate on Lot F without trespassing on Lots G and H. means that to permit BEll to conduct a compliant commercial fueling business, the NAC would first have to reduce space leased IV Fligh!Level at the Airport. Moreover. since BEH cannot so much as remove snow from it Lot 

## r without either tre passing onto FlightLevel's Lot G and/or Lot H, or conducting an overt act of sabotage, dis posses ing Fl ightLevel of its business opportunitie . and the quiet enjoyment of its leasehold; together with the fact that the airpor1 cannot sustain t>'<O commercially viable FBOs, and the price to be paid by ALL in what v. ill certainly be an indefinite period of intense hostility as the two FBOs fight each other for insufficient business at the Airport, and drain the Town of Norwood's resources in ongoing

F L I < ; II T I E \ ' 1-: I \ \ ' 1.\ I I< l'

'\ U It\\ C l 0 D \I \ 112 0 (, 2

### ' orwoo d Airpo r1 Co mmissio n Janua r y 29, 20 15 Page 2.



### an

d inc r ea ingl y desperate and lit i gious attempts t o en force t heir property rights and qu i et en joyme nt , means th at it 

### would 

### ALSO be unrt>asonablr cost/)' , h urdensome , or imvrac ticalto en f ra nchi se 

### m or

e than 

### one FBO a t the Airpo r1 . The presenc e of a single FBO on an Airport it is NOT a violation of the Grant As surance s , and an Airport mav deny e\' cn a qualified l< ' BO applicant if · ·[it} 

### would he 

### unreasonab l y cos1 rv. burdenso m e. or im p rac/icalfor more them on efixed-base operator to provide the ser1 • tces: and allowing more than onefixed-base opera tor to p ro1 ·ide the serl'ices would require reduci11 g the space leased under W I existing af(reemenl between t he on efixedhase opero to r and the airport owner or operator. ·· I !3oth o r these 

### elemen ts arc satis fi ed here . The NAC needs to end this insanity once and fo r all by 

### act ing OW to invo k e its safe harb or, the sing l e FBO exception . R

es pectfully subm i ttcd.



## ~/



# Pete **rEi h~**  FLIGHTLEVEL Aviation - Pres ident 125 Ac cess Road Norwoo d , MA 02 062 W 7 8 1 . 769 8680 ext. 128 E : peter@fl ig ht leve l av i ati on .com F . 7 8 1.769 . 71 80

1 T h e Si n gle FBO exceptton can be f ound in the following places; 49 u.s .c. § 47107( a )(4)(A and B) s ta t es : (4) a person providing, or intending to provide , aeronautical services to the public will not be gi ven an exclusive r ight to use the airport, w it h a ri g ht given to only one fixed - base operator to provide services at an atrport deeme d not to be an exclusive right if-- (A) (it] would be unreasonab l y costly, burdensome, or impractical for more than one fixed - base operator to provide the services ; and (B) allowing mo re than one fixed-base operator to provtde t he services would requtre reducmg the spac e leased under an existing agreement between the one fixed - base operator and the airport owner or operator ; 49 U. S. C § 40 103(e) "A pe r son does not have an exclusive right to use an a1r navtgation faCility on which Government money has been expended . However , prov i ding services at an airport by only one fixed operator ts not an exclusive r i ght lf -

(1) it is unreasonably costly , burdensome , or impractical f or more than one fixed operator to provi d e the services ; and, (2) allowtng more than one ftxed base operator to provide the sen.ices requires a reduction tn space leased under an agreement extsting on Septembe r 3, 1982, between the operator and the airport . 

### 2