Debunking AOPA Myths About OK3 AIR

More documents

Info

2 AOPA Myth #1: OK3 AIR is the “most complained about” FBO in the country. Misleading. When AOPA repeatedly says that OK3 AIR is the “most complained about” FBO in the country, it appears to be relying on its own survey, conducted in 2017, about “egregious FBO pricing.” The very nature of the survey solicited complaints, not objective reviews. What made things worse in Heber City is that, in response to AOPA’s survey, Paul Boyer, one of AOPA’s local members, repeatedly disparaged OK3 AIR and then solicited complaints from his friends and other airport users. Because of this behavior, Boyer is currently being sued by OK3 AIR for defamation per se in state court. AOPA knew this, but still relied on the skewed survey results. And AOPA apparently made no effort to consider reviews from other sources. This is no big surprise. AOPA often writes a letter about its position on a topic and then issues a press release quoting that letter as proof of the accuracy of its position. But, the fact that AOPA says something is true does not make it so. In this matter, AOPA has also misrepresented the size of its study. When AOPA uses terms like “alarming” and “substantial,” it infers that it has received hundreds of complaints about OK3 AIR in response to its survey. This is not the case. OK3 AIR has obtained the so-called “alarming number” of complaints. Prior to AOPA’s first attack in July of 2017, AOPA had received a total of 219 complaints in response to its survey and, of those 219 complaints, only 11 were complaints about OK3 AIR. So, AOPA made OK3 AIR its poster child for egregious fuel pricing based on 11 complaints, a mere 0.0037% of AOPA’s membership. This number is alarmingly insubstantial when you realize that Heber Valley Airport has more than 30,000 aircraft operations and OK3 AIR handles almost 10,000 aircraft operations a year. The number of survey responses and complaints are also insignificant when you compare them to other AOPA call-to-action efforts, such as ATC privatization, in response to which more than 200,000 letters, emails, and phone calls were sent by AOPA members to Congress. AOPA’s willingness to use the full strength of its PR department to unjustly defame an independent, single-location FBO and interfere with its contracts, in order that its local members might obtain a fuel discount, is an abuse of power. AOPA should know better and its members should demand better. AOPA Myth #2: OK3 AIR has a "monopoly.” False. FAA rules do not regulate whether an airport or FBO can have a ‘monopoly’ or not. Monopolies are a matter for antitrust law and deal with industries as a whole. AOPA and AOPA’s attorney know that. Moreover, AOPA cannot seriously argue that OK3 AIR—a
3 single-location, independent FBO—has a monopoly in the FBO industry, when other FBO chains legally have as many as 180 locations. AOPA Myth #3: OK3 AIR has an “exclusive right” and, by failing to provide a second FBO, Heber City is violating its Grant Assurances. False. OK3 AIR does not have an exclusive right. “Exclusive right,” unlike “monopoly,” is a legal term of art in aviation law. Heber City, as sponsor of the Heber Valley Airport, receives funding from the FAA under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. As a condition of receiving Airport Improvement Program (“AIP”) funds, the City is subject to AIP Airport Sponsor Assurances, as incorporated into the City’s grant agreements (the “Grant Assurances”), including Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights. Generally, Grant Assurance 23 prevents sponsors from granting any entity the exclusive right to provide aeronautical services to the public. Although this would seem to prevent airports from having only one FBO, the law is more complicated than that. In fact, the FAA does not consider the presence of only one service provider at an airport to violate Grant Assurance 23, so long as the sponsor and provider have not agreed to exclude other qualified providers. AOPA and AOPA’s attorney know that. The presence of one FBO at an airport is hardly rare. In 2017, there were 3529 public-use airports in the United States with a 3000 foot paved runway or longer. Of those airports, 15.81% had no FBO providing fueling services (including the airport sponsor), 76.25% of those airports had only one FBO, and only 7.94% had 2 or more FBOs. In other words, more than 92% of public-use airports in the United States had one or no FBO. Is AOPA really arguing that more than 76% of public-use airports have granted their FBOs illegal exclusive rights? Vail, Aspen and Sun Valley are among those airports that have only one FBO and AOPA has not attacked them. Therefore, the sole fact that OK3 AIR is the only current FBO in Heber City does not establish that it has an exclusive right. Heber City and OK3 AIR have not agreed to exclude other qualified providers. Nor has the FAA found that OK3 AIR has an exclusive right, even though it recently had the chance to consider that question. On February 21, 2019, the FAA issued a preliminary decision on a complaint filed against Heber City by Paul Boyer, the same local agitator who defamed OK3 AIR and solicited the negative AOPA reviews. In his complaint to the FAA, Boyer alleged, among other things, that Heber City had improperly allowed OK3 AIR to have an exclusive right in violation of Grant Assurance 23. The FAA disagreed. The FAA has decided that OK3 AIR does not have an exclusive right. Yet AOPA never mentions the FAA February 2019 decision on this issue. Rather, it keeps claiming— incorrectly and to the detriment of OK3 AIR’s reputation and relationship with Heber City
Page 1: Debunking AOPA’s Myths About OK3
Page 5 and 6: 5 In fact, Heber City first adopted
Page 7 and 8: 7 Heber City, a living wage. Is AOP

Debunking AOPA Myths About OK3 AIR

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?