Opinion ID: 187447
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: M & O Charges

Text: Although the DOT held the M & O fee increase was reasonable, the City petitions for review on the ground that, because the increase was imposed pursuant to a written agreement with air carriers using the facilities of an airport, 49 U.S.C. § 47129(e)(1), the DOT did not have the authority to determine whether it was reasonable. The agreements to which the City refers are the T1/T3 Airlines' leases, which had expired, and pursuant to which the T1/T3 Airlines were occupying terminal space as holdover tenants upon a month-to-month basis. According to the City, the continuing application of the expired leases and the City's reliance upon the clauses in each allowing for adjustment of the M & O rent deprives the DOT of authority to review the reasonableness of the increase. The DOT, however, held the written agreement exception did not apply because [a] standard or boilerplate `holdover' agreement, creating a tenancy at will on a month to month basis, subsequent to lease expiration, does not constitute the type of written agreement that forecloses a § 47129 proceeding. Final Decision, 2007 DOT Av. LEXIS 437, at . The T1/T3 Airlines challenge neither the DOT's authority nor the reasonableness of the increased M & O charge but rather argue the result of the increase was unjustly discriminatory vis-à-vis other airlines at LAX, in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(2). The City nonetheless disputes the DOT's decision that the written agreement exception did not apply because, it says, it fears the future effects of [the] incorrect ruling. Because the airlines do not challenge the decision under 49 U.S.C. § 47129, there is no case or controversy as to whether the written agreement exception applies; even if we held the DOT lacked authority to consider the reasonableness of the increase in M & O charges, that holding would not have any effect on the charges. Because no justiciable `controversy' exists when parties... ask for an advisory opinion, Mass. v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 516, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007) (citing Hayburn's Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 409 (1792)), we cannot decide the question presented by the City. We reject the T1/T3 Airlines' argument that the increase in M & O fees was unjustly discriminatory. As of the date of the Final Decision, all airlines operating out of LAX were paying the increased M & O fees. At some time between that date and the filing of the T1/T3 Airlines' petition for review, the City and the airlines operating out of the other terminals agreed, in settlement of their dispute, to a lesser increase in the M & O fee. Although the DOT could not have foreseen the outcome of that litigation, the T1/T3 Airlines argue the Department should have considered the possibility that the other airlines would either prevail in or reach a favorable settlement of their dispute with the City. The DOT did not act unreasonably in refusing to consider the range of potential outcomes in the litigation between the City and the other airlines. The DOT could not determine whether the T1/T3 Airlines were being unjustly discriminated against without knowing whether the other airlines had achieved a favorable result with the City, much less whether the result was so favorable as to constitute unjust discrimination against the T1/T3 Airlines. The DOT's decision to base the Final Decision upon what it knew, rather than upon what it might have predicted, was not arbitrary and capricious.