AOPA Pans GAO's FBO Pricing Report

A recent report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on the pricing of aviation services found that while pricing at FBOs is dependent upon many variables, it has not been identified as a widespread area of concern.

Industry stakeholders interviewed for the report range from airport officials to FBO customers, to trade organizations such as NBAA, NATA, GAMA, as well as the service providers themselves. The GAO found that its the cost to build and maintain facilities such as hangars and fuel farms as well as operating costs that influence pricing; along with other factors such as seasonal demand and competition.

Some aviation groups, spearheaded by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), have called for greater transparency of service pricing at public-use airports. They asked for an examination of FBO pricing and the FAA’s oversight of related airport grant assurances, particularly 22b which states that an airport must ensure aeronautical services are available to all users on a reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory basis. The GAO, in its year-long review, developed a statistical model to analyze variation in fuel prices in the contiguous U.S., reporting that “as of March 2019, we identified 3,070 FBOs operating at 3,016 airports located in the contiguous United States; these airports are included in FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS).

Since 2007 the FAA has doled out more than $37 billion in grants to airports to fund capital development and is responsible for ensuring compliance with requirements, including providing airport users equal access to airport services such as fueling.

The GAO statistical model confirmed a correlation between cost and demand factors, and unsurprisingly found higher overall prices charged by FBOs at airports with higher cost and demand. While on-airport competition could result in lower fuel prices at busy airports, the agency noted not all airports can support more than one FBO. The report defined an FBO as a business granted the right by the airport to operate fueling facilities, hangars, aircraft tie-downs, and other aeronautical services.

At the end of December, AOPA responded to the report, describing it as lackadaisical and stating it “misses the mark.” Its primary complaint with the findings appears to be that it does not specifically back AOPA’s call for FBO pricing transparency, particularly at AIP grant-funded airports. The association also stated that the report did not include in its analysis fees for other services such as ramp, tiedown, security, facility, infrastructure, and access fees. “Its lack of probing FBO fees and the satisfying of airport grant requirement issues is shockingly shallow,” AOPA wrote.

The GA organization noted that while most FBOs charge fair and reasonable fees for welcomed services, others, particularly those in sole-provider situations, do not publish rates and charges, often surprising pilots with higher-than-expected fees.

AOPA added: “It is disappointing that the GAO, the guardian of taxpayer dollars, failed to thoroughly address all aspects of federal grant requirements. The report reflects a complete lack of contextual knowledge of the industry and how it is intended to operate.” The organization also found fault with the report’s assessment of market economics, which contended that pilots had the option to patronize alternative area airports if they disagreed with the pricing and fees charged by a service provider at their preferred airport. AOPA argued that community airports are meant to be available to all pilots and the traveling public on reasonable terms.

Further, AOPA said the report failed to acknowledge its assertation that charts for all public-use airports should clearly indicate available non-FBO-controlled ramp space for aircraft parking when FBO services were not desired.