Click Here to View This Page on Production Frontend
Click Here to Export Node Content
Click Here to View Printer-Friendly Version (Raw Backend)
Note: front-end display has links to styled print versions.
Content Node ID: 390770
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) is continuing its battle against FBO pricing, filing Part 13 complaints with the FAA at three airports where there are Signature Flight Support facilities and publicly calling out two other locations for FBO practices there. Seven pilots joined AOPA in filing the complaint against Illinois' Waukegan National Airport (UGN), North Carolina's Asheville Regional Airport (AVL) and Florida's Key West International Airport (EYW).
AOPA cited “egregious pricing” at Signature FBOs at those airports and noted that Signature controls all transient ramp space and fuel services at the three airports, effectively giving the chain a “monopoly position and significant power over access to a public airport.” The association charges that each FBO has “failed to fulfill its responsibility to protect the airport for public use through reasonable and fair pricing.” The FAA has the authority to ensure airports meet their grant obligations, including reasonable and nondiscriminatory pricing, AOPA added.
“Of the hundreds of complaints AOPA has received over egregious FBO pricing, Waukegan, Asheville and Key West are three of the top five most complained about airports,” AOPA said. “The other two airports rounding out the top five are Heber City, Utah (36U), and Rochester, Minnesota (RST).”
While AOPA has not filed a Part 13 complaint against Heber City, it has expressed its concerns to city officials there. The association also fought to convince officials at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, to add a second FBO to create competition there. The association further views this round of Part 13 complaints as a starting point for its efforts.
AOPA earlier this year gave notice that it was ready to take on FBOs over pricing. The association also had quietly met with the FAA before on the issue.
But the AOPA effort has drawn the ire of fellow association, the National Air Transportation Association. NATA president Martin Hiller had earlier this year called the effort “particularly disappointing as it continues a pattern of contradictory assertions designed to alleviate industry concerns while it pursues an economic regulatory agenda” and added, “While AOPA claims to support FBOs and the free market, there is no recognition that some locations require different pricing models.”
Of the Part 13 complaints, NATA expressed disappointment that AOPA chose to engage in this battle at this time when NATA said the general aviation groups need to remain united as they battle the effort to create an independent user-funded organization to run the nation’s air traffic control system.
Signature was developing a response at press time. But president and COO Maria Sastre had said of the earlier AOPA articles: “When you liken FBOs to public utilities, it becomes a matter of concern to all of us in the general aviation business community.” She had noted a number of factors that play into pricing, such as economic, airport and regulatory requirements, and said, “To suggest regulatory intervention in pricing, as AOPA does, will not bring back the conditions of a previous era and instead potentially [will] accelerate the decline of general aviation in America.”
But AOPA believes it is time for FAA to get involved and points to language in the agency’s dismissal of a Signature Part 16 complaint involving its forced departure from John Wayne Orange County Airport in Santa Ana, California. The FAA had noted it is an airport sponsor’s right and responsibility to consider FBO pricing.
“The FAA really hasn’t exercised proper oversight in this area for a very long time,” said AOPA general counsel Ken Mead. “These kinds of pricing practices have put airports in violation of grant assurances and at risk of losing federal funding. It’s the responsibility of the FAA and airport sponsors to ensure the terms incorporated in each lease are upheld, especially when they are accepting federal grants.”
The complaints allege that Signature’s pricing is unreasonable because it requires operators to pay minimum fees for landing at airports. The association also cites lack of competitive or regulatory forces to ensure reasonableness of pricing.
AOPA asks the FAA “exercise its investigative oversight authority and take appropriate action to ensure Signature’s pricing complies with” each governing body’s grant assurances.
“Our members have spoken and they’re tired of being forced to pay for services they don’t want, ask for, or need,” said AOPA president and CEO Mark Baker.
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) is continuing its battle against FBO pricing, filing Part 13 complaints with the FAA against three airports where there are Signature Flight Support facilities and publicly calling out two other locations for FBO practices there.
Seven pilots joined AOPA in filing the complaint against Illinois' Waukegan National Airport (UGN), North Carolina's Asheville Regional Airport (AVL) and Florida's Key West International Airport (EYW). AOPA cited “egregious pricing” at Signature FBOs at those airports and noted that Signature controls all transient ramp space and fuel services at the three airports, effectively giving the chain a “monopoly position and significant power over access to a public airport.”
The association expressed the belief that “each FBO has failed to fulfill its responsibility to protect the airport for public use through reasonable and fair pricing” and instead engaged in “egregious pricing practices under minimal oversight and in violation of standards designed to protect reasonable access to public ramp space.” The FAA has the authority to ensure airports meet their grant obligations, including reasonable and nondiscriminatory pricing, AOPA added. Among the pricing complaints were fees assessed when aircraft land at facilities for simple drop-offs without a need for any services.
“Of the hundreds of complaints AOPA has received over egregious FBO pricing, Waukegan, Asheville and Key West are three of the top five airports most complained about,” AOPA said. “The other two airports rounding out the top five are Heber City, Utah (36U), and Rochester, Minnesota (RST).”
While AOPA has not filed a Part 13 complaint against Heber City, it has expressed its concerns to city officials there. The association also fought to convince officials at Jackson Hole, Wyo., to add a second FBO to create competition there. The association further views this round of Part 13 complaints as a starting point for its efforts.
AOPA gave notice earlier this year that it was ready to take on FBOs over pricing. The association also had quietly met with the FAA before airing its grievances publicly and has written articles in AOPA Pilot expressing its concerns.
Dissenting Perspective
But the AOPA effort has drawn the ire of the National Air Transportation Association. Earlier this year NATA president Martin Hiller had called the effort “particularly disappointing as it continues a pattern of contradictory assertions designed to alleviate industry concerns while it pursues an economic regulatory agenda” and added, “While AOPA claims to support FBOs and the free market, there is no recognition that some locations require different pricing models.”
Of the Part 13 complaints, NATA expressed further dismay at their timing. “This action is disappointing, coming at a time when the general aviation community is confronting a serious effort to privatize our nation’s air traffic control system,” Hiller said. “General aviation, as we know it in this nation, is under a real threat. We need to stand united right now and not be concerned with distractions like this."
NATA also wrote letters to local FAA airport district offices and the Illinois Department of Transportation expressing concerns about the informal Part 13 complaints.
“The assertions made in these complaints reflect a misunderstanding of a number of key points related to the economics of aviation businesses: the pricing of aeronautical services, industry consolidation and the airport sponsor-tenant relationship,” said NATA executive v-p Bill Deere in letters sent to the FAA Orlando and Memphis Airports District Offices and Illinois DOT. “The FBO services market is and remains a very competitive industry. Those within the aviation industry fully understand that FBOs compete vigorously with each other on price, service and quality of facilities.” Deere further questioned the interpretation of grant assurance requirements in the Part 13 complaints.
Signature Flight Support, meanwhile, said it is aware of the complaints filed against the airports, and added it is “committed to fair and transparent pricing, which supports the high levels of service and safety at all of the airports we serve.”
The FBO chain noted that it invests its own capital to build, renovate and maintain the facilities and said, “We will continue to invest in ramp construction, maintenance and repair at all of our facilities and will continue to work closely with the airports we serve to ensure consistent service for all aviators as well as remain in compliance with the FAA, all regulatory authorities and airport requirements and conditions.”
President and COO Maria Sastre said of the AOPA articles published earlier this year: “When you liken FBOs to public utilities, it becomes a matter of concern to all of us in the general aviation business community.” She noted a number of factors that play into pricing, such as economic, airport and regulatory requirements, and said, “To suggest regulatory intervention in pricing, as AOPA does, will not bring back the conditions of a previous era and instead potentially [will] accelerate the decline of general aviation in America.”
But AOPA believes it is time for the FAA to get involved and points to language in the agency’s dismissal of a Signature Part 16 complaint involving its forced departure from John Wayne Orange County Airport in Santa Ana, Calif. The FAA had noted it is an airport sponsor’s right and responsibility to consider FBO pricing.
“The FAA really hasn’t exercised proper oversight in this area for a long time,” said AOPA general counsel Ken Mead. “These kinds of pricing practices have put airports in violation of grant assurances and at risk of losing federal funding. It’s the responsibility of the FAA and airport sponsors to ensure the terms incorporated in each lease are upheld, especially when they are accepting federal grants.”
AOPA asks that the FAA “exercise its investigative oversight authority and take appropriate action to ensure Signature’s pricing complies with” each governing body’s grant assurances.
“Our members have spoken and they’re tired of being forced to pay for services they don’t want, ask for or need,” said AOPA president and CEO Mark Baker.