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 oft he 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 
'orwood Airpor1 Commission 

January 29, 20 15 

Page 2. 

and inc rea ingly desperate and litigious attempts to enforce their property rights and qu iet enjoyment, means that 

it would ALSO be unrt>asonablr cost/)', hurdensome, or imvracticalto enfranchise more than one FBO at the 

Airpor1 . 

The presence of a single FBO on an Airport it is NOT a violation of the Grant Assurances, and an Airport 

mav deny e\'cn a qualified l<'BO applicant if ··[it} would he unreasonably cos1rv. burdensome. or imprac/icalfor 

more them one fixed-base operator to provide the ser1•tces: and allowing more than one fixed-base operator to 

p ro1·ide the serl'ices would require reduci11g the space leased under W I existing af(reemenl between the onefixedhase ope rotor and the airport owner or operator. ··I 

!3oth o r these elements arc satisfi ed here. The NAC needs to end this insanity once and for all by acting OW to 

invoke its safe harbor, the single FBO exception. 

Respectfully subm ittcd. 

~/

FLIGHTLEVEL 

Pete rEi h~ Aviation - President 

125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062 

W 781.769 8680 ext. 128 

E: peter@flightlevelaviation.com 

F. 781.769.71 80 

1 The Single FBO exceptton can be found in the following places; 

49 u.s.c. § 47107(a)(4)(A and B) states : 

(4) a person providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public will not be given an exclusive right to use the airport, 

with a right given to only one fixed-base operator to provide services at an atrport deemed not to be an exclusive right if--

(A) (it] would be unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical for more than one fixed-base operator to provide the services; and 

(B) allowing more than one fixed-base operator to provtde t he services would requtre reducmg the space leased under an existing 

agreement between the one fixed-base operator and the airport owner or operator; 

49 U.S.C § 40103(e) "A person does not have an exclusive right to use an a1r navtgation faCility on which Government money 

has been expended. However, providing services at an airport by only one fixed operator ts not an exclusive right lf-

(1) it is unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical for more than one fixed operator to provide 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 September 3, 1982, between the operator and the airport. 

2