Jose wrote in
:

... if they make the fee prohibitive enough to achieve a
complete ban (which is probably impossible as there is always some
one with deep enough pockets who could pay it) they would then run
afoul of the FAA. One airport authority tried this at their class B
and got slammed down by the FAA.

Which airport?

Jose

Massport - Logan (BOS) in 1988.

Basically, it's ok to have a landing fee based on weight, but you
can't discriminate. So, if you say charge $1 per 1000 pounds, a light GA
aircraft would pay $3 while a 747 would pay about $800. If you try to
adjust the weight rate to price out the little guy, you will also price out
the airlines. What Massport did was add a "per landing" fee to the weight
fee. This was ruled by DOT/FAA to be unreasonable, discriminatory, and
preempted by Federal law. Massport appealed but the U.S. Court of Appeals,
1st Circuit, upheld DOT/FAA.

An interesting result of the ruling was a DOT/FAA opinion that if an
airport can document congestion delays during certain times, it can then
implement a congestion surcharge to ALL arrivals during these times. (There
are a few permitted exemptions, but scheduled airline is not one of them.)
However, it can only do so during the hours that the documented congestion
exists. It can't, as Massport tried to do, apply the surcharge 27-7.
Currently, I am aware of JFK, EWR, and LGA using a congestion time
surcharge.

From the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Regional Review, Winter 1997:

"Logan's landing fees, like those of virtually all U.S. airports, do
not reflect congestion. Fees are based instead on weight. So a typical
wide-body jet pays roughly $800 while the smallest plane, which causes as
much congestion, pays $25.

In 1988, Massport did try a fee scheme that combined aircraft weight with
an additional fee per landing. Flights by smaller planes became relatively
more expensive, and their use of Logan dropped substantially, although that
reduction was also affected by industry consolidations. The scheme ended
after it was judged discriminatory against small planes by the U.S.
Department of Transportation, which noted that small aircraft paid higher
prices even at hours when there was ample runway capacity. At the same
time, the agency ruling opened the door to peak-load pricing, noting that
"it may be appropriate to raise fees in order to invoke market responses
during periods when the airport is congested.""

Another reference you may find interesting is the FAA's letter to
Massport of June 10, 2004 available at:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/airpo...er20040610.pdf



--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)