Court Opinion

ID: 8996852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-27 12:46:17.137719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:11:05.426548
License: Public Domain

CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge.
I concur in Judge Kennedy’s opinion, except for Part III(C), allocation of fair share costs to General Aviation. On this issue, I write for the majority as Judge Nelson and I agree that the method the Airport used to assess airside operation fees for General Aviation and the Airlines was a reasonable method within the meaning of the Act.
In regard to the allocation of other costs, I agree with Judge Kennedy that the allocation of terminal rental costs between the Airlines and the concessions was reasonable, because 100% of these costs was not charged to the Airlines. In regard to crash, fire and rescue charges, I agree with Judge Kennedy that it is unreasonable to allocate 100% of these costs to the Airlines and that a remand to the district court is necessary to determine a proper allocation. Judge Nelson dissents from this position.
I will now deliver the opinion of the court with respect to Part III(C), allocation of fair share costs to General Aviation.
The Airlines argue that the Anti-Head Tax Act, 49 U.S.C. App. § 1513(a), has been violated because the Airport unreasonably charges the Airlines 100% of their airside operations costs for their use of the Airport’s runways, taxiways, hangars, and passenger terminal apron, but charges General Aviation (corporate and private aircraft) only 20% of the airside operation costs, which it incurs. The Airlines argue that the Act requires that General Aviation be charged the full amount of its airside operation costs.
I do not agree. Since the shortfall in the costs incurred by General Aviation does not come out of the Airlines’ pocket, but is made up instead out of concession revenues, this court has no authority to order that General Aviation must be charged 100% of its airside operation costs. The plain language of § 1513(a) of the Act applies only to persons traveling in “air commerce.” The statute thus does not give the federal courts the authority to dictate how an airport should manage its business in regard to corporate and private aircraft or concessions, but indicates that a court may interfere only in regard to the reasonableness of the rates charged to commercial airlines. It is not unreasonable for the Airport to charge the Airlines 100% of their airside operation costs and General Aviation only 20% of its airside operation costs as long as the Airlines are not required to pay for the 80% “loss” the Airport incurs in regard to General Aviation.
In the present case, General Aviation is charged a four-cent-per-gallon fuel flowage fee and a landing fee which raises less than 20% of the landing area costs created by General Aviation. The shortfall incurred by General Aviation is made up out of the surplus revenues generated by the fees paid by the concessions. The Anti-Head Tax Act is limited in scope to the reasonableness of the rates charged to commercial aircraft operators and does not concern the revenues derived from concessions. Therefore, a federal court does not have the authority to state that instead of using concession revenues to make up the shortfall, General Aviation must be charged 100% of its airside operation costs. A discrepancy in a fee vis-a-vis different types of air carriers based on an operational cost is unrelated to the Anti-Head Tax Act’s prohibition against charges on “persons traveling in air commerce.” New England Legal Foundation v. Massachusetts Port *1065Authority, 883 F.2d 157, 170 (1st Cir.1989). Moreover, even if General Aviation were charged 100% of its airside operation costs, the Airport reasonably could continue to charge the Airlines 100% of their airside operation costs. Thus, the demand which the Airlines make would not necessarily bring them any relief.
To reiterate, the Anti-Head Tax Act authorizes the federal courts to intervene in the setting of airports rates and charges only in the limited circumstance where the rates charged to commercial airlines are unreasonable. The decision of the Airport in the present case to charge the Airlines 100% of their airside operation costs, but to charge General Aviation only 20% of its airside operation costs, does not result in discriminatory treatment against the Airlines, because the shortfall from General Aviation is not paid for by the Airlines but is made up out of the surplus concession revenues. This Court is in agreement that the Airlines are not entitled to a cross-credit of concession revenues. Therefore, the Airlines do not have standing to challenge what is done with the concession revenues in regard to General Aviation. The Airlines do not contend that the fees charged them for their airside operations costs are arbitrary or capricious and concede that the fees are based on the actual break-even costs calculated on the basis of aircraft weight and number of landings. Because the fees charged to the Airlines for their airside operations have a reasonable relationship to the actual costs incurred, they are reasonable within the meaning of the Anti-Head Tax Act. The decision of the district court that the method the Airport used to assess airside operations fees was a reasonable method is hereby AFFIRMED.