- 1- UNITE D STA T ES OF AMERICA FED ERAL AV IATION AD MI NI STRATIO N

W ASHINGT ON, D.C. FLI GH TLINE GR OU ND , I NC . d/ b/a ) F LI GH TLI N E F IR ST, ) ) Compl ain ant ) ) v . ) DO CK ET NO . 16- 11- 01 ) LOU ISIA NA

D EPAR TMEN T OF ) TRAN SP OR TAT IO N A N D D EV EL OP M EN T, ) AS SUCCESS OR TO T HE LOUISI ANA ) DIVISI ON OF ADMINISTRAT ION and THE ) BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR T HE ) MANAGEMENT OF THE LA KEFRONT ) AIR POR T; N ON -F LOOD PR OTECTIO N ) AS SE T MAN AG EM EN T AUT HO RI T Y, ) AS S UC CE SSORTO THE BOA RD OF ) COMMISSIONERS OF T HE ORLEANS ) PARIS H LEVEE DIST RICT an d ORLEA NS ) PAR ISH LEVE E D ISTRI CT, DI VISI ON OF ) N ON
- F LO OD A SS ETS ) ) Res pondent s )
RE BU TTA L TO T HE C OM PLA IN A NT ’S R ESPO NS E A ND A ME ND ED RESPO NSE A ND R ESP ONSE TO THE A MENDED COM PLA INT

BY THE M A NAGEMENT A UTHORITY CO ME S N O W Re s p o n d e n t , No n -F lo o d P ro t e c t io n A s s e tMa n a ge m e n tA u t h o ri t y, suc ces sor

to the B oar d o f

C o mmiss ion ers o f the Or lea ns Lev ee D is tr ict and D iv is ion of Admin is trati on, S tate of Louis ian a, t he g ov er nin g the author ity of the Non- Fl ood As set s o f the Orleans Le v ee District (“ OLD”) including the Ne w Orleans La kef ront Airpo rt (“ Ma nag ement A u th o rity ” or “ Res pondent ”) , t hroug h undersi g ned c ounse l, w ho fil es the follo w ing rebutt al to C omplai nant’ s res ponse to the answ er of the Ma nag ement A uthor ity pursuantto §16.23( f) and re spons e to Compl ain ant’ s a mendments , al l pursuantto FAA- 2-

Order date d M ay

5, 2011: RESPO NSE TO A ND R EBUTTA L OF COM PLA INA NT’S STA TEMENT OF FACTS Acc ordin g to Compl ain ant, the under ly ing l it ig ati on and settl ement t hereof is noth ing
more than a dev ic e employ ed to co nfer ben efits on A eroPremier and Adv antag e C api tal to t he det ri ment of F li g htl ine

. Compl ain ant h as now reduc ed i ts Par

t 16 Compl ain t i nto a
cons piracy

theo ry w hic h presupp oses thatthe re putabl e, c ompetentpro fe s s i o n a l s i n v olv ed with th e u n d e rlyin g lit iga ti o n an d th e su b se que n t s e tt le m e n t a gre e m e n t were co llu d in g. T his is a slande rous allegation w hich cou ld notbe furth er f rom the tr uth

. T his allegation is not o nly an i nsul t butal so a tes tament to t he des perate n ature of Co mplai nant’ s C omplai nt. Compl ain ant’ s respon se is furth er fil led w it h mi srepre se n ta ti ons and out ri g ht falseho ods. For ex ample, the bel ow are a few of t he Compl ain ant’ s f la wed st a tements and /or failure to co mp rehe nd th e significa nce o f the Lo uisiana Court procee dings: Co m pla ina nt c onti nual ly mis re present s t he Settl ement A g re ement an d the Conse nt Orde r, both of w hich are in evidence and spea k for them selves. Contra ry to the rep resen tatio ns of Co mp lainan t, the OLD did take discovery in the u nder ly ing l it ig ati on. It is not acc epted cus tom, p ra cti ce and procedu re in the S tate of Louis ian a to sue the S tate o f

L ouisian a throu gh th e Div ision of A dm inistration in a suit
w here the Orl eans Lev ee Di str ict, Di v is ion of Non- Fl ood As set s i s t he l ess or of the l ease w hic h forms the basi s o f the under ly ing l it ig ati on. M r. H odg es’ aff ida v iti s si mil ar ly flaw ed as i t mi srepresent s t he amountof the Set tlem entAgreem entand Ms. Sh arp’s opin ion. A s st ate d in our respo nse- 3- to the Compl ain t, Ms . Sharp ’s opi nio n onl y es ti mated A eroPremier ’s l oss of fuel s ale s a s a resul t of respon dent’ s b re ach of the l ease. Also, Mr. Hodges incorrectly assum es tha t of the 24, 000 square feetof of f ice cont ain ed in the NG Hang ar , only 8,000 sq uare feet w as not improv ed. No ne of the 24, 000 s q uare feet of of fice spac e w as improv ed pursuantto the
re q uirements of the l ease. Al l of the office s pace re mains uni mprov ed altho ugh it is ant icipate d tha t it w ill be co mp lete a s o f the en d of

this y ear. Mr . H odg es’ aff ida v iti s t herefore c ri ti cal ly flaw ed. The restof

that af fidav itcontai ns leg al conc lus ion s w hic h M r. H odg es is not qualif ied to make . Mr . Hodges’ lack of qua lifica tions w ill be add ressed more ful l y l at er i n th i s me mo ran du m. Compl ain ant b ases i ts enti re Amended Compl ain t and Amended Res ponse to the Answ er of the M anag ement A uthor ity on “ new ly

di sc ov ered ev ide nce”

. That “ ev ide nce, ”
w hich w ould n ever be a ccept ed evidence in any co urt of law as it v iolate s sev eral stan dard
ru les of admis sabi li ty , i s a st atement made by a F EM A empl oy ee whi ch a p p e ared i n an arti cl e i n the N ew

Or lea ns Ci ty

Bus ine ss new spape r on Apr il 8 , 2 0 1 1

. In t hat a rt ic le the FEM A empl oy ee s tated that h e w as “p re tty ce rt ain ” that FEM A funds neces sar y for t he
re pai r of the N ati onal G u a rd H a n g ar w ere notdeobl ig ated by F EM A. How ev er , t he attac hed emai ls from M s. Lis a Smel tz er from t he St ate o f Louis ian a D iv is ion of Adm inistration mad e it crys tal clear tha t the said FEMA f und s w ere de obligated in Sep tem ber, 20 07 a nd reobligated in Decem ber, 2008

. See , Exhibit 1 atta ched

. Th e FEMA
e mp l o y e e w a s t h e re fo re mi s i n fo r me d a n d t h e C o mp l a i n a n t b a s e d a n e n t i re Amended- 4-

Comp la in t and Amend ed R espon se on th at mi si nformati on. The patt er n of usi ng misinforma tion is foun d throu ghout Com plaina nt’s f ilings. RESPO NSE TO A ND R EBUTTA L OF COM PLA INA NT’S LEGA L CONCL USIONS Compl ain a n t all eg es that Res pondentv iol ated 49 U SC §§4710 7( a) (1 ), (a )( 5) for all eg edl y as ses si ng unj ust ly

disc rim ina tor

y rates and charg es betw een F li g htl ine and AeroPremier

. In s uppor t t hereof, Co mplai nant ci tes a s i g nific ant a mount of i nformati on th at
w as the s ubj ectof the u nder ly ing l it ig ati on. Si mply put, C ompla in a nt an d AeroPremier h a ve b e e n ch a rg e d t h e e x a c ts a m e ra t e s
. B y d e f in it io n a n d b y Co m p la in a n t ’s o wn document s, there has been no unj ust discri mination betw een t he two F BOs

. Fur ther , t here i s n o doc ument s ubmitted i n thi s p ro ceedi ng thatco ntends that Compl ain ant w as coerced to ac ceptthe ra tes charg ed by the R espon dent. The As soc iat e Admin is trator , i n Aerody namic s o f Readi ng , I n c
. v . R e a d i n g R e g ion al Ai rp ort Au thor ity , F AA Doc ketN o. 16 -0 0- 03,p. 20 r ule d tha t:

“...the FAAw ill no t en te r ta i n a com plaintabo ut reaso nab lene ss of a fee set by

ag re ement w hen the c omplai nt i s fil ed by one of the p arti es setti ng the dis puted fee. [Pol icy R eg ard ing R ates and C harg es, 61 F ed.R eg . 319 94, 3 2018 ( June 21, 1 996) .] T he grav am en o f

this com plaintis w het her the charges assess e d t o F lightline are unreason abl e. T here is no docu me nt in existence in th is proceed ing or in any correspond ence betw een t he C omplai nant and the Respo ndent, and/ or the FAA , i n w hic h the C omplai nant
re qu e sts to be charged the same rate as Ae roPrem ier. The Associate Adm inistrato r, in Aerody namic s o f Readi ng , I nc. v. Readi ng Reg ion al Ai rp ort Author ity , FAA Doc ketN o. 16
- 00- 03,p. r ule d tha t:- 5- “I n order

to est ablis h a clai m of unjus t di sc ri minat ion , a compl ain ant mus t est abl is h that it re q uest ed s imi lar ter ms and condi ti ons as other

si milar ly s it uated air por t us ers a nd w as deni ed for unj ustreason s.” The FA A’ s A ir por

t C ompli ance Han dbook5190. 6B, see espec ial ly p. 9- 1 et. seq ., ma k e s s o me fa i r l y c o mm o n s e n s e o b s e r v a t i o n s a b o u t e n fo r c e me n t o f 4 9 U S C §47107 (a)(1),(a)(5); the airport prop rietor shou ld esta blish a system of rates an d c harges for FBOs, inter alia , for comparabl e faci li ti es. The i nit ial rates as ses sed to F li g htl ine and AeroPremier
w ere ex act ly

the same. W hen the Respo ndent faile d to meet i ts cont ra ctu al obl ig ati on to AeroPremier , that FBO sued the Res pondentin state cour t for the mater ial breach of fail ing to pro vide a n e ss e n ti a l p a rt o f a n y FB O op e ra ti o n , to wit, th e o f f ice s f ro m whic h to m a n a ge suc h a facil ity . That breach of leas e w a s lit iga ted i n the Sta te C our t proceed ing and ult imat ely

se tt le d t h ro u g h medi ati on after the OLD w as adj udg ed to hav e breache d the lea se. C omplai nant chos e notto int er v ene in that Stat e C our

t proceed ing , ev en th oug h i ts all eg ati ons herein ind ic ate that Compl ain ant has/ had is sues w it h the re sol uti o n th e reof. The Sett lementAg re ement w hic h C omplai nant tak es is sue w it h w as made s ubj ectto the app rov al of

the FAAw hich ha s state d tha t it does n ot ap prove or d is a p prove of such agreem ent s. T he State Court proceed ing (und erly ing l itigation) is stare de cisis

. I t s ee ms a w ast e of the FAA ’s ti me ( if not an abus e of it s s carce re sources ) to reopen t he unde rl y ing li ti g ati on; t herefore, the R espon dent urg es the D irect or to dis mis s t he i nst ant C omplai nt. The real probl em behi nd th is C omplai nt mayac tual ly i nv olv e the i ndependen t acti on of the C omplai nant in inv est ing i n i ts facil it ies w ell bey ond t he M ini mum Standa rd s i mposed by the Auth o rit y . ( See mini mum sta ndards 150/519 0- 7 - M ini mum Standa rd s for Com me rcial Aeron aut ical Activi ties). Flig htline decid ed on its own initiative t o in v est- 6-

subs tanti al capi tal i nto i ts facil it ies and has created an ex cept ion al FB O. That c ommitment of mil li on( s) of dol lars t o it s pla nt has posi ti oned it s company as a premier l ocat ion , buthas als o c re ated a cost basi s w hic h may be a di sadv antag e c ompared to i ts compet it ion . That sel f-impos ed ec onomicdi sadv antag e has been further ex acer bated by

the low co st, l ow ser v ic e s tatus of AeroPremier . W hil e out si de of the pur v iew of thi s p ro ceedi ng , t he Aut hority w ill consid er rev iew ing and up dat ing i ts Minimum Stan dard s. Base d on the a bov e procedu ra l and s ubst anti v e argum e n ts, the R espon dent
re spectfull y

req uest s t hat t he D irect or di smi ss the ins tant Compl ain t. The Compl ain ant ass er ts that the R espon dent v iol ated 49 U SC §47107 ( a) (1 3) and Grant As su ra n ce 25 a by “d iverti n g” Ai rp o rtreve n u e t o A e ro Pr e m ie r a n d A d van ta ge Ca p it a l (p a ge 43, inter alia , of

the Ap ril 5 respo nse; it is assum ed th at in the section marke d “conclusio n”, Com plaina nt has “conso lidate d” h is m any p oints into a few cogent th oughts). T he sta tuto ry lan g uag e c it ed i s t otal ly i nappos it e to the a ll eg a ti o n o f div ersi on; t he c it ed s ubsecti on add resses the obligation of an airpo rt to atte mp t to be self-s u s t aining. GrantAssuran ce 25a, how ever, s p e a ks to re v enue di v ersi on and in an effort t o resol v e thi s a ll eg ati on ex pedi ti ousl y , t he bas is for d is mis sal of thi s c harg e w il l be s tated here. Th e re v e n u e d i v e rs i o n l a n g u a g e o f t h e A c tw a s e n a c t e d t o p ro h i b i ta i r p o rt s from si phoni ng rev enues created on ai rp orts to l ocal g ov er nments . I f t he l eg is lat iv e hi sto ry w as
n o t a b u n d a n tl y cle a r, th e n ref e rra l to t h e F AA ’s ru le m a kin g pro ce e d in g, htt p ://www .fa a .go v/a irp o rt s/ re so u rce s/ p u b lic a ti o n s/fe d e ra l_ re gist e r_ n o ti ce s/ m e d ia /o bli g a ti on_f in a l9 9 .p df

and /or Hand boo k 519 0.6 B w ould f urthe r clari f y the ina pplicab ility

of this provisi on. Perha ps the mostex plicit FAA prono unce me nt th at th is statut orypolicyis focused on ai rp ort- to- loc al g ov er nme n t t ra n s a cti ons can be found atthe Han dbook¶ 1 5.14,- 7-

p.9 , w hich sta tes;

P rohibite d use s of

airport rev enu e includ e direct or indirect payme nts th at exceed the fair and reasona ble v alue of those ser v ic es and faci li ti es prov ide d to the a ir por t. The is sue in the i nst ant p ro ceedi ng i s p ay ments bei ng pai d by the tenantto the A ir por t. T he Director sho uld dism iss this elem entof the Com plaina nt’s prayer. Com plaina nt alleg es tha t the Respo nde nt has failed to mee t its statut oryobligation to make the L akefro nt A ir por

t s elf- sus tai nin g , 49 US C §47107( a) (1 3) (A ) and G ra nt A ss urance 24. On a parall el lev el, i t i s a ll eg ed th at t he Aut hor ity h a s f a iled to mai ntai n and operate t he air por t i n v iol ati on of 49 USC § 47 107( a) (7 ). The R espon dent admit s t hat i t s uffered throu gh the m ost severe nat ural disaste r that ha s occurred in th e histo ry of New Orleans, the S tate of Louis ian a and the G ulf R eg ion , H ur ri cane Katr ina . The FAA must tak e j udi ci al noti ce that the R espon dent’ s i nabi li ty to fo re cast t he i ncredi ble hav oc w re ck ed on the air por t w as cons is tent w it h the lev el of preparati on of the may ors, g ov er nors a nd rele v ant fede ral o f

f icials o f t he ent ire region. G iv en th ose facts, th e Com plaina nt’s allegation s fail to r is e to the lev el of a v iol ati on of §§47107 (a )( 13) (A ) or ( a) (7 ). The F AA, in it s s tatement of Policy on Rate s and Charges, 61 Fed.Reg. 319 94 (June 21 , 199 6), see p . 320 21, w here the fol low ing g uid ance is se t:

At som e airports, marke t cond itions m ay notperm it an airpo rt propr iet or

to est abl is h fees that are suff ic ien tl y hi g h to re cov er aerona ut i c al c os ts a nd s uffi c i en tl y l ow t o attrac t an d reta in commerci al aeronauti cal serv ic es. In suc h c ircums tanc es, an air por t propr iet or ’s dec is ion to charg e rates thatare bel ow tho se nee ded to achieve self susta inab ility in orde r to assu re th ats er v i c es a re prov i de d to t he p ub l i ci s n oti nh eren tl y i n c o n s i s t e n tw i t h t h e obli g a t i o n t o m a k e t h e a i r p o rta s s e l fsusta ining as possible in th e circumst ance s. The abov e la n gua ge e st a b lis h e s t h a t t h e Au th o rity ’smanag ement do es not fai l eit her- 8-

of these statu tory ma nda tes. The Co mplai nt i ncl udes all eg ati ons that the g ra nt b y t h e R e s p o n d e n t

t o A eroPremier the r ig ht t o s ubl ease some o f its l eased sp ace is a v iol ati on of a l it any of g ra nt as surances and statu tory provisi ons cite d by C om plaina nt. If grantin g the right to sub lease space is a
v iol ati on of the sta tute, there are a n umber of air por ts around t he c ountr

y i n v iol ati on. THE RELEVA NCE of MA I CREDENTIA LS TO THIS PROCEEDING The Co mplai nant arg ues that the R espon dent has v iol ated the stat ute bythe pr ic es ( o r a s i tha s te r me d i t , “ t h e e c o n o mi cb e n e fi t s ” g ra n t e d t o A e ro P re mi e r )

. I n s u p p o rtt h e re o f, the comp laint i nclud es lengthy text and ev en m ore exhaust iv e af f idavits that op ine on this cont enti on. The ex per

ti se ci ted i s l arg ely

bas ed on professi onal crede nti als , to w itM AI. The
e d u c a t io n a l, e xp e ri e n t ia l a n d e xa m in a t io n re qu ir e m e n t s fo r t h is d e s ig n a t io n a re im p re ss ive and demons trate t he des ig nee’ s a bil ity to d e te rmine t he v alu e of proper ty . The i nst ant p ro ce e d in g is n o t a b o u t t h e valu e of th e La ke f ro n t A irp o rt , t h e la n d valu e of th e bu ild in gs occ upi ed by the F BOs or ev en of the bui ldi ng s t hemsel v es. The i ss ues in thi s p ro ceedi ng re lat e to the e conomi c impact of t he Res pondent ’s fail ure to del iv er off ic es to A eroPremier and the im pactof

thatmat erial breach o n the ongoing busine ss of the FBO. An MAI w ould be us e fu l i f t h e A u t h o r i t y w a s s e l l i n g t h e a i r p o rt , w h i c h i t i s n o t

. Th e v a l u e of the M AI designat ion is a t bestt angen tial to this proce edin g. It w ould b e mo re re levant if t he e x pert proffered as crede nti als l eadershi p of a AA AE c ommitt ee on Rat es and C harg es or an F AA
a d viso ry pa n e l o n un ju st ly dis cri m in a to ry rat e s. T h a t e xpe rt ise is n o t p a rto f t h e pa ck a ge inc lud ed i n thi s c omplai nt.- 9- FACT UA L RE BU TTA L - TH E A TTACH ED R EPORT PR EPA RE D BY T HE A VIA TI ON GR OU P ( TAG) PR OVID ES H A RD EVI DE NC E TH A T RE SPON DE NTIS IN C OM PLI A NC E WIT H TH E STA TU TE, RE GU LA

TI ON S A ND GR

A NTASSU RA NC ES. The Co mplai nant has filed a pl ethora of all eg ati ons and concl usi ons. The hu ndreds of pag es of pleadi ng s fil ed herein by the Compl ain ant rel y

heav il y on int er pretati ons and extrapolat ions f rom th e litig ation in Louisian a up on which the Se ttlem entAgreem entis base d. T he Compla inan t’s “ex perts”, w ho w rote the conclu sory text, did not bring to this p ro c e e d in g e xt e n s ive , d ir e c te xp e ri e n c e o p e ra t in g a n d m a n a gi n g F B O s
. T h e ir p e rs p e c t ive does not rela te t o tr

y ing to im p re ss a prospecti v e ten ant b y w alk ing her

/hi m throug h the FBO l obby

or hang ar
. Theyhav e nev er endured the demands of the mar ket pla ce w hen t h e c o m p e t it o r F B O h a s a p ri c e a d va n t a ge
. O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e p ri n c ip a ls o f T A G h a ve y ears o f hands o n ex per ien ce doi ng the act ual w or k of r unni ng an FBO and t hat i s t he i ss ue in th is p ro ce e d in g. In further

co ntrast , t he R espon dent hired an ind ependentco nsul tant , TAG, t o ex amine all the facts of this proceed ing and thei r charg e i ncl uded t h e dev elo pment of infor mati on out si de of t he Loui si ana l it ig ati on. TAG ex amined the traff icdata before and after Katr ina

. Theyex amined the air por t pl an. Theyasses sed the actua l int o plane rates offered by

the FBO s. They

track ed the his tor

y of t he F BOs on t he Ai rp ort and traced the trends of the v ar iou s c ompani es that precede d the ev ents at is sue. I n order to understa nd the a cti ons of the Aut hor ity , TAG measured th e i m p a ct o f K atr ina on t he reg ion and the Ai rp ort. They

se t, as a c ri ter ia for m e a su rin g t he R espon dent’ s p er formance and of the manag em e nt’ s d eci si ons on th e F BOs , t hei r know led g e of other co mpara ble ai rp orts. They did ind epe nde nt eco nom ic and f inan cial ana ly ses.- 10-

In s hor t, TAG c omplet ed an ind ependent , objecti v e rev iew of the act ion s a t i ss ue. Their address ed eac h of the is sues , c og niz abl e byt h e F AAu n d er the sta tute or

the
re g ula ti ons. As to each and ev er y co mplai nt, TAG’s repor t as ses ses the facts and refutes that there w ere v iol ati ons. I n s ummary , TAG prov ide d ev ide nce, not conc lus ion s, of how the Respon den t com plied wi th all of its obligations. Res p o n d entreiterate s its position th at th is Compla int sho uld be summ arily dis mis sed. Res pectfully

su bmitted t his 2 day

of June, 2011. nd
GERA RD G. M ETZGER (A PLC)
BY : s/C har les T . C ur ti s, Jr . GER A RD G. M ETZ GER

( LSB A #9468) EM A IL : gerry @me tzgerlaw firm.com CH A RL ES T . C URTI S, J R. ( LSB A #4677) EM A IL : ccurtis @me tzgerlaw firm.com 829 B A RO NN E ST RE ET NE W OR LEA NS , L A

70113 TEL EPH ON E: ( 504) 581- 9322 FACS IM IL E: ( 504) 581- 2773 A ND J. E . M UR DO CK , I II 5034 N EB RASK

A A VE. WASH IN GT ON , D .C
. 20008 TEL EPH ON E: ( 202) 333- 5986 A TTORNEYS F OR RESPONDENT, NO N- FL OOD PR OT EC TI ON ASSET MA NA GE ME NT A UTH OR IT Y- 11- CERTIFICA

TE OF SERVICE I hereby ce rt ify thatI hav e thi s d ay

se rv ed th e foreg oin g Ans w er on t he foll ow ing perso ns at th e followi ng address via electronic m ail: Off ic e of the Chi ef Couns el Attn : F AA P art 16 Ai rp ort Proceed ing s D ock et AGC -6 10 Fede ra l Av iat ion Admi nis trati on 8 0 0 I n d e p e n d e n c e Av e
. , S

. W. W ashi ng ton, DC 20591 Email : 9- AW A- AGC -P art- 16@faa.g ov
Al a n Arm st ro n g, E sq. 2900 C hamble e- Tucker R oad Bui ldi ng 5, Sui te 35 0 Atl anta, GA 30341 Email : ala n@al anar mstrong law .co m Cou nsel for C omplai nant, Flig htline Ground , Inc. d/ b/a Flig htline First
Br a n d o n Bro wn, Es q. 1201 C api tal Ac ces s R oad Baton Rou g e, LA

708 04 Email : brandon.b ro w n@la .g ov Cou nsel for R espon dent, Loui si ana D epar

tment of Transp ortati on and Dev elo pment Dat ed th is 2 day

of June, 2011. nd

s/C har les T. C urti s, Jr

.

CHARLES T . CURTIS, JR. Cou nsel for R espon dent, N on- Fl ood Protec ti on A s s e tMa n a ge m e n tA u t h o ri t y