Legal question about public airport access

How much do they want for a monthly fee? I can understand wanting to secure the field and have those using this gate pay something to defer the cost of putting the gate up. $1-5 seems reasonable.

It would be nice if they gave you the option of paying once a year or a lifetime though... I absolutely hate having to deal with all the monthly stuff I have to pay and keep track of.
 
Duster1 said:
Freeways and tollways, I don't think it's the same comparison as private and public runways, but lets try to make it work in your scenario:

You built your hotdog stand on your private land that is accessed via a public funded road built by the local city government (a freeway).

Later the road is sold to private owners (who still get government funding for upkeep and improvements of the road because it is considered "public use"). But they also put up a tollbooth and charge you and your customers to use it.

As the hotdog stand owner, are you being a "parasite" for expecting to have continued free access to this privately owned publicly funded road that you built your business around?
Click to expand...
Don't waste your time. Just let it roll off like water off a duck.

But I'm wondering how "Squatters rights" might apply here. I've heard some rather egregious cases where the squatter won.
 
That is a mess. Before you bring in lawyers try to negotiate some acceptable fee. Sucks but is cheaper then fighting with lawyers. Was the airport sale a shady deal or just the town not wanting to bother?
 
cowman said:
How much do they want for a monthly fee? I can understand wanting to secure the field and have those using this gate pay something to defer the cost of putting the gate up. $1-5 seems reasonable.

It would be nice if they gave you the option of paying once a year or a lifetime though... I absolutely hate having to deal with all the monthly stuff I have to pay and keep track of.
Click to expand...

The current proposed fees are reasonable considering the cost of the large electronic gate.

But what is to keep the airport owners from raising the costs in the future?

What if they owners decide a local business is in competition with them and deny them access out right?

The issue isn't the amount being charged now, but the principle of them being able to close off access to the runway altogether to the local businesses who rely on operating from the public use runway.
 
Duster1 said:
I'm following you. But lets change your scenario a little:

In this case the Piggly-Wiggly store is still in existence, and for some reason the store is eligible for government grants for upkeep because it is considered "public use" (maybe the store is located in a historically significant building or something).

But the new owners of the store want to gate off Turkey road and charge access to anyone wanting to even step foot in the Piggly-Wiggly.

The question is do the new owners have the right to charge for access to a [partially] public funded store by blocking access from the public road?

Okay that is kind of silly but I think it gets the point across. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yup, your example is better, and I think we're defining the problem or issue better as well. In your example I would say hell no, they can't put up a fence across a public street and charge money to get to the Piggly-Wiggly. Particularly if it's been free access right of way for N years where N is a double digit number.
 
ClimbnSink said:
That is a mess. Before you bring in lawyers try to negotiate some acceptable fee. Sucks but is cheaper then fighting with lawyers. Was the airport sale a shady deal or just the town not wanting to bother?
Click to expand...

Thanks for continuing the conversation and being open to my point of view. It is indeed a mess. But I don't think we are being "parasites" for what we are asking or expecting.

I'm not sure if the deal between the city and the new owners was "shady", it happened over 10 years ago and I'm not sure what you mean by shady. I'd like to see the deed or terms of the sale of the airport but I doubt we will have access to any of that until we get lawyers involved.

Some of us are reluctant to pay any fees because we feel we may be giving up some rights that will lead to future problems.
 
Last edited:
JOhnH said:
But I'm wondering how "Squatters rights" might apply here. I've heard some rather egregious cases where the squatter won.
Click to expand...

I think we're on the right track with something like this. Not so much squatter, but a grandfathered access which becomes a common-use.

Another example; The kids walk across a vacant public lot every day to go to school, a path is worn down, and soon bikes are using it, and parents walk there kids there and back. The lot is then sold, and the people have been using it for > 7 years. Even though they haven't paid any taxes, fees, or the like for access, nonetheless, they have an implied right of way across that property to get to the school. Now, the new owner puts up a fence, blocking the long right of way. I think the students/parents have a good case for continued use, even though not ownership rights, or a constructive easement where the property owner is restricted from blocking off that pathway that's been so convenient for them all these years.

Of course, if I were the property owner, putting up a fence and blocking that path is the first thing I would do, and then let the 'trespassers' try to work it out.

You're going to need to show a case where there was a reliance on the property owners to use that street with the knowledge and acceptance of the city when it owned the airport, and also the street owner(presuming the city also). If you can do that, you might be able to build a case for - oh, maybe $200k in total legal fees. :yes:
 
Duster1 said:
We are negotiating an access fee and so far the airport owners seem reasonable, although we haven't got a solid number yet only a word-of-mouth promise that it will be "fair". Some are reluctant to agree to any fee because they feel it puts them at a disadvantage to any future access rights.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think this will work to your favor. You WANT them to offer access for a fee, like you had before for free. Once you have the fee schedule in hand, then I would argue about common use, right of way, squatter rights, etc.
 
Good luck. Friend bought an airport from another, the original owner retained a house lot with, I believe agreed on runway access but I don't know to what extent. Anyway they were both in the same aviation business and when it went sour they spent 100s of thousands in legal fees fighting. Went on for years was finally settled when they told the lawyers they couldn't pay them because they were broke. Lawyers quickly wrapped it up then. While there is mental pain paying for something that used to be free just paying the fees is probably the cheapest and least mentally anguishing path.
 
I was really hoping someone would post a link to an FAA document that clearly defined a "public use" or "public funded" airport as having free access by the public, but I'm realizing that is not the case and it is kind of depressing on many different levels.
 
Duster1 said:
I was really hoping someone would post a link to an FAA document that clearly defined a "public use" or "public funded" airport as having free access by the public, but I'm realizing that is not the case and it is kind of depressing on many different levels.
Click to expand...

Thematically, I seem to think the FAA is going the opposite direction on this, by actively discouraging, or outright disallowing through the fence access to property owners. Of course, my knowledge of the inner workings is about the same as my knowledge about the inner workings of the UN.
 
N801BH said:
I must have forgot to mention the "ramp fees, handling fees, tie down fees, etc etc..... After all , it all part of the experience of landing there...;)
Click to expand...

The Port Authority doesn't charge those fees. Private businesses do.
 
Duster1 said:
I was really hoping someone would post a link to an FAA document that clearly defined a "public use" or "public funded" airport as having free access by the public, but I'm realizing that is not the case and it is kind of depressing on many different levels.
Click to expand...

The document you need to familiarize yourself with is the FAA Order 5190.6b, the FAA Airport Compliance manual. Thing is, it doesn't sound like the airport is currently in the NPIAS so none of what is in the manual applies, unless there are remaining federal obligations resulting from surplus property conveyances or federal land purchases.

What is the airport?

I can say this: if there are issues that affect the rights and powers of the owner to abide by future federal obligations, that will affect the Ability of the airport to gain entry into the NPIAS.

It's also unusual for an airport that is privately owned to be admitted into the NPIAS. Only privately owned airports classified as "GA relievers" with more than 100 based aircraft are eligible. (There are many that don't meet this requirement that are grandfathered). Otherwise, the FAA will want to see a governmental entity acting as airport sponsor. At a minimum, the governmental entity needs a long term exclusive lease to operate the airport.

Another point: through-the-fence does not necessarily mean access through adjacent property. For example, an airport sponsor of a federally funded airport is within his rights to charge an ultralight pilot a fee for trailering his aircraft onto the field and using the airport. The reasoning is that he is gaining access just like everyone who paid for tie downs or a hangar, which contribute to the upkeep of the airport.
Main takeaway here: federally obligated airports can charge reasonable fees for access provided they are not unjustly discriminatory. The grant assurances require obligated airports to be as financially self-sustaining as possible.
 
N801BH said:
What FBO does the port authority own at Teterboro ????
Click to expand...

They don't own any. What's your point?

My point is that the last time I used TEB, I paid a $17 landing fee, and a $50 parking fee was waived with 15 gallons of (very expensive) fuel. That's still magnitudes less than $500. Sorry I questioned you.
 
Are the people who hangar their planes inside the fence being charged to use the gate, too?
 
Duster1 said:
The airport was originally built by the city.

There is a short road that connects an adjacent major 2 lane road to the airport. Both of these roads are public (I'm sure of it).

Over time owners of private land adjacent to the short road have built hangars and use the short road as a taxiway to access the runway. Most of the land is zoned commercial/industrial and businesses have been established based on access to the runway.
Click to expand...
Is taxiing planes on a public road legal in the jurisdiction?

Duster1 said:
The city sold the airport to private owners several years ago.

Technically the new owners have not yet received government funding, but in order to qualify for future government funding (in the form of grants through the NPIAS program) the new owners are erecting a fence around the entire airport property with a gate on the airport side of this short road.
Click to expand...
So the gate is not across a public road, as you've been saying. It is on private property at the end of the public road...essentially a gate across a driveway.

Duster1 said:
The new airport owners are charging the existing business owners to have access through this gate (the main and only entrance to the airport) through a business airport access agreement.

You can see this is a mess. I was hoping someone had previous experience with this so we can get some ideas before we get lawyer$ involved.
Click to expand...
 
Duster1 said:
It was previously owned by either the city or county, but recently (in the last several years) was sold to a private organization.
Click to expand...

Then it is a privately owned airport, they can pretty much do as they please. In the past, the FAA has refused to fund any projects on private property.
 
Brad Z said:
The document you need to familiarize yourself with is the FAA Order 5190.6b, the FAA Airport Compliance manual. Thing is, it doesn't sound like the airport is currently in the NPIAS so none of what is in the manual applies, unless there are remaining federal obligations resulting from surplus property conveyances or federal land purchases.

What is the airport?

I can say this: if there are issues that affect the rights and powers of the owner to abide by future federal obligations, that will affect the Ability of the airport to gain entry into the NPIAS.

It's also unusual for an airport that is privately owned to be admitted into the NPIAS. Only privately owned airports classified as "GA relievers" with more than 100 based aircraft are eligible. (There are many that don't meet this requirement that are grandfathered). Otherwise, the FAA will want to see a governmental entity acting as airport sponsor. At a minimum, the governmental entity needs a long term exclusive lease to operate the airport.

Another point: through-the-fence does not necessarily mean access through adjacent property. For example, an airport sponsor of a federally funded airport is within his rights to charge an ultralight pilot a fee for trailering his aircraft onto the field and using the airport. The reasoning is that he is gaining access just like everyone who paid for tie downs or a hangar, which contribute to the upkeep of the airport.
Main takeaway here: federally obligated airports can charge reasonable fees for access provided they are not unjustly discriminatory. The grant assurances require obligated airports to be as financially self-sustaining as possible.
Click to expand...

None of that applies to a private airport. Unless the owner wants to comply for other reasons.
 
Duster1 said:
The current proposed fees are reasonable considering the cost of the large electronic gate.

But what is to keep the airport owners from raising the costs in the future?

What if they owners decide a local business is in competition with them and deny them access out right?

The issue isn't the amount being charged now, but the principle of them being able to close off access to the runway altogether to the local businesses who rely on operating from the public use runway.
Click to expand...

Wake up, It is their runway, they bought it out right. They can do as they want with it. If they want to use your property would you allow them to use it free?

It's their property. They can lock every body out, but that wouldn't make them any money.
 
Tom-D said:
None of that applies to a private airport. Unless the owner wants to comply for other reasons.
Click to expand...

Re-read my second sentence. And it can apply to a privately owned airport, if it is federally obligated (there are many examples of privately owned airports receiving federal AIP funds).
 
Last edited:
Duster1 said:
What exactly does "public-use" mean?

Again, just to be clear, I'm not only questioning the legalities of accessing the airport from private property, but in this case all access is being restricted.

There is an existing public road that accesses the runway. The local hangars use this public road as a taxiway to the airport. The owners of the airport are putting a gate across this public road access point and charging to go through the gate, essentially shutting off ALL ground based public access to the runway.
Click to expand...

http://www.throughthefence.org/driggs-airport/airport-agreements.html

http://www.tetonvalleynews.net/news...cle_83cab42b-440f-584d-9417-54c8b23bafad.html

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp_rpt_114.pdf
 
ClimbnSink said:
We can all land on public funded runways, access from adjacent private property is an inappropriate taking of a public good. They are parasites. Watch them hire lawyers to prove it.
Click to expand...

Is a shopkeeper who opens up on private property adjacent to Anytown Main St. a parasite, too? How would that be different? I'm not following your logic, and certainly don't see what motivates the vitriol.

I not convinced that what the OP describes is illegal, but as public policy goes (and that's a fairly low bar), it certainly looks as dumb as a pile of tires.
 
Duster1 said:
I was really hoping someone would post a link to an FAA document that clearly defined a "public use" or "public funded" airport as having free access by the public, but I'm realizing that is not the case and it is kind of depressing on many different levels.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a free launch.
 
It seems they are allowing public access from the air, it's the ground he is complaining about. The airport likely rents hangers and tie down to store aircraft and charges rent to do so. These people own property that is not part of the airport and want to use the facilities of the airport without paying for that access. I must agree with the airport on this one.
 
Norman said:
You don't need us. You need a lawyer familiar with what you describe.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
Concur -- and that lawyer needs to be proficient in both this area of aviation law and the particular state's property rights laws, and also must have all the deeds and other documents involved to review.
Click to expand...
But why do that when one can get such great advice here?

Yeah, having dealt with it a bit, this is a "through the fence" issue which ties into FAA grant assurances and economic discrimination among users (if applicable) and may involve state law as well.
 
Yeah but going the lawyer route might be terminally expensive. Pride goeth before the fall or something.
 
Brad Z said:
Re-read my second sentence. And it can apply to a privately owned airport, if it is federally obligated (there are many examples of privately owned airports receiving federal AIP funds).
Click to expand...

Normally the FAA will not grant money to a privately owned airport.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Yeah but going the lawyer route might be terminally expensive. Pride goeth before the fall or something.
Click to expand...

So it's just about a desire to yell and screaming impotently?

Going the lawyer route doesn't have to be terminally expensive. The primary job of a lawyer is to advise on rights, remedies, options and risks. And then, based on that advice, to decide on a course of action.

The course of action might indeed be terminally expensive. Or it might not be. Obtaining the knowledge and advice definitely less so.

If I were an airport business user exploring through the fence options and actually cared about it, I'd want information on where I stood and what the available options were most of all.
 
And if I was an airport owner with freeloading adjacent landowners and got wind of them lawyering up I'd cut off their access instantly. Lawyers first is Russian roulette.
 
ClimbnSink said:
And if I was an airport owner with freeloading adjacent landowners and got wind of them lawyering up I'd cut off their access instantly. Lawyers first is Russian roulette.
Click to expand...

When they do that, and public access is denied the sectionals change, to private by invitation only. The big circle "P"
 
What I'd like to know is, what was the agreement when the city sold the property?

Was there stipulation that it would continue to be public access?

If so, there might be a case in favor of the off airport users.
 
ClimbnSink said:
And if I was an airport owner with freeloading adjacent landowners and got wind of them lawyering up I'd cut off their access instantly. Lawyers first is Russian roulette.
Click to expand...
True. It's sooo much better off to run around half-cocked and ignorant.
 
midlifeflyer said:
True. It's sooo much better off to run around half-cocked and ignorant.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if the client starves as long as there are hours to bill. Hungrier the client gets the longer you string them along.
 
Independence State in Oregon, 7S5, had thought the fence issues a few years ago. It is a State owned airport with an adjacent "streets are taxiways and garages are hangars" neighborhood. They got the through the fence issues resolved when TSA issues started up. Yours going private changes things, but maybe there's some info you can get looking into that one. It doesn't sound like the new owner is looking to just make you guys go away or to hold you hostage for every last nickel he can squeeze out of you. Just defray the cost of actual expenses incurred by Federal law to secure the Airport. Making an agreement that includes a reasonable fee to maintain the gate and pavement that gives through the fence access AND ENSURES future access seems like the way to go to me. Sorry I don't have references for you. Good luck.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Doesn't matter if the client starves as long as there are hours to bill. Hungrier the client gets the longer you string them along.
Click to expand...
Not even close to what most real lawyers do (and since you used, "you", I'll add definitely not something I've done, even when I was doing the starving).

But since you assume the worst in the bunch (and I have definitely met some of them) are typical, I take it you agree with all the negative news stories about pilots also. We are, after all, all rich kids with their toys who care nothing about anyone or anything else, aren't we?

But one never likes hearing facts that counter their religious beliefs, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top