It appears the state takeover of Jackson's airports may not be a done deal. The Federal Aviation Administration clarified its policy on disputed ownership changes in the June 6 edition of the Federal Register. The FAA made it clear that it prefers to approve such transitions when all parties have agreed to the change. However, such is not the case when the Governor signed SB #2162. The FAA said it will not approve such ownership changes until the dispute is settled. The FAA states in the Federal Register:
That is the actual policy (which was not provided by the media). JMAA and Reverend Jeffery Stallworth asked a federal court to block the state takeover of the airport. However, the FAA may approve the change if the courts rule in favor of the state. Then there is the timing of the posting of the FAA policy. One may be forgiven for thinking it is no coincidence that the FAA issued this policy within sixty days after Governor Phil Bryant signed SB #2162. JMAA petitioned the FAA to deny any requests to transfer the FAA certificate to any new governing body's for the airport.
Summary: This document clarifies the FAA's legal authority and policy for addressing disputed changes of sponsorship at federally obligated, publicly owned airports. This document also explains the requirements for state or local government entities to coordinate with the FAA when contemplating actions that may impact an airport's ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations....
While state or local legislative action, or a judicial action, as the case may be, may seek to change an airport's ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations, only the FAA has the authority to determine sponsor eligibility, approve and formally change airport sponsorship, and approve and issue a new Airport Operating Certificate pursuant to 14 CFR part 139. The FAA has a statutory obligation to ensure that an airport sponsor/operator is capable of assuming all grant assurances, safety compliance, and other Federal obligations, and has the expertise to operate the airport. Specifically, an airport sponsor/operator must meet the requirements set out in title 49 U.S.C. 44706, as implemented by 14 CFR part 139, for obtaining an Airport Operating Certificate, (if applicable) or in 49 U.S.C. 47102, as implemented by FAA Order 5100.38D (which includes provisions governing sponsor eligibility for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding) and/or 14 CFR part 158 (which governs the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40117).
The FAA's obligation extends to reviewing sponsor/operator eligibility when state and local governments propose a change in the airport governance structure to ensure that there is no ambiguity regarding responsibility for Federal obligations and that any proposed changes will not impact compliance with Federal law. (In the event of a local or state dispute regarding sponsorship/operation of the airport, the FAA will apply the policy set out in Section IV below.) If any proposed changes give rise to such concerns by the FAA, the agency will work with state and/or local government(s) to resolve the concerns or, if the concerns cannot be addressed, deny the request.....
Any state or local legislative body or public agency considering whether to take an action, such as drafting legislation, that would impact airport ownership, sponsorship, governance, or operations should (1) consult with and obtain the consent of the current sponsor/operator (absent extraordinary circumstances, such as substantial evidence of mismanagement on the part of the current sponsor/operator); [2] and (2) request technical assistance from the FAA about the interrelationship between Federal and state or local requirements, and seek the FAA's review and comment as early in the deliberative process as is practicable. A failure to consult may cause FAA to deny a proposed change to airport sponsorship and/or operating authority. In all cases, final decisions regarding the proposed change will be made by FAA's Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis.... (it would appear that such consent was not obtained.)
The determination of whether to seek a new applicant for airport sponsorship is a state or local decision. The FAA expects that all disputes about whether to change airport sponsorship and/or operating authority will be resolved through a legally-binding agreement between the parties involved in the dispute or a final, non-reviewable legal decision. While parties should seek technical assistance from the FAA as early as practicable, parties are encouraged to wait until a dispute has been resolved before submitting an application to the FAA seeking the agency's approval of a change in sponsorship of, and/or operational responsibility for, an airport. In matters in which a proposed change is contested by a current sponsor or operator, the FAA will not act on a part 139 application or a change of airport sponsorship and/or operating authority until the dispute is definitively resolved to the satisfaction of the FAA. Resolution may be demonstrated by issuance of a final, non-reviewable judicial decision requiring such a change, by the issuance of a consent letter between the existing airport sponsor and/or operator and the proposed new sponsor and/or operator, or by other legally definitive means deemed acceptable to the FAA.
The FAA will accept an application for a change in airport sponsorship/operation only upon a legally definitive resolution of a dispute. At that time, the FAA will evaluate whether an application is complete and whether the proposed airport sponsor/operator is capable of assuming all grant assurances, safety compliance, and other Federal obligations, and has the expertise to operate the airport as required by law.
Kingfish note: It will be sad, infuriating, and ironic if all of the fighting caused by SB #2162 was moot because the FAA controls the final decision on airport ownership. The creation of much bad blood could have been avoided. Of course, there is the slim possibility that the FAA will approve the change anyway. It might depend on how much the FAA likes its appropriations. JMAA might not have thought of that possibility. There is also the chance that Jackson loses the lawsuit. The FAA said it can rule in favor of SB #2162 if it holds up in court. Stay tuned.
25 comments:
Regarding "appropriations", Cochran owes more to Jackson residents than to Rankin Tea Partiers. FAA never will go for this. This waste of time and resources should make the list of one of the money savings task forces. Idiots.
The aiport?
The State can simply enact a statute stating only Regional Airport authorities can operate International Airports in the State of Mississippi. Then, it's over anyway. .... The State as the creator gets to say what authority any county, municipality or instrumentality thereof can and cannot do
I look for the "or by other legally definitive means deemed acceptable to the FAA" to be the solution of choice. The idiots cant keep the lights on for goodness sakes. And if the FAA wants an appearance by the Appropriations Chair Sen Heard, I am sure that can be arranged.
Whew! For a little while I was afraid the great state of Mississippi was going to do something progressive.It looks like that has been averted.
The Jackson Airports ( notice the plural) were some of the worst run airports around. The previous head was horrible. Lost revenue by his actions and has a political appointed board that knew nothing about aviation. Evers airport has run off many private airplanes and there has been no hangars built in 40 years at Hawkins Field. Where tyhere were three FBO's at Hawkins now there is one. Impossible to put another at Evers because of the rules. Airlines have left even though their flights were nearly always full. Why? We will never know! The parking free time was cut from 30 minutes to 12. Efectively giving no one time to do anything! Evers is a hostile airport to use. It needs to be put under a regional management and get rid of Tony Yarbor's pay for play appointees.
This is simple. The State should buy the airport out right. Jackson needs money, so work a deal that Jackson will get State funds to help with infrastructure problems in exchange for giving up the airport. Win-Win for both. But "politicians" think they can always get their way. It is complete incompetence that the bill made it all the way without somebody asking if FAA would approve. Shows what idiots we have in that big building (both sides of the isle).
Exactly. State should buy the airport. Who would think some Republicans want something for nothing?
If the city sold the airport, it would provide more funds to hire some more consultants.
People that actually fly will tell you we have a great airport for a town our size. Have you seen the airports in Baton Rouge, Mobile or Shreveport? We are far better. Comparing our route list to New Orleans is ridiculous
12:16 and Kingfish,
from what I have heard the state has put more money in the airport than the city? If not can you provide me with a number that the city has funded the airport? Also what price would you put on it and what are you buying. Right now it does not look like much.
KF, your post is ironic. Lots of bluster for nothing in its own right. You apparently did not notice that the effectiveness of SB2162is expressly made contingent upon approval of the "change in ownership" by the FAA. In other words, the legislature was fully aware of, and directly addressed, this "issue" that you "discovered."
2:34 The state has put zero dollars into the airport. None at all. Great false narrative, though. Keep playing.
2:34. The state has put zero dollars into the airport, unless you count the 'pass thru' dollars that come from the feds, thru MDOT, for the airport. These are not state dollars, but the folks wanting to steal the airport from Jackson have been counting them.
The 'other' state money is the PERS match for the City of Jackson employees that work at the airport. Hard to count that match as state money, but Harkins used it in his example during the argument to pass his bill.
The reason for this takeover is the real estate surrounding the airport - which has real value to it now that it has been opened up with the new road on the NE side. Anyone who says the airport has little or no value has no idea what you are talking about. It is one of the few money makers of the City of Jackson.
Yes, the few folks in the legislature that pay any attention were well aware of the little 'glitch' called the FAA. Senator Harkins told everyone that it had been 'taken care of' - which anybody that has any sense knew could not be true. Many comments on JJ, and in the media, that this takeover by the Repubs in the legislature would not survive, but would make many lawyers rich over the next decade.
Anybody that really believed that this bill would accomplish anything had their head in the sand - obviously not an unusual condition during the past legislative session.
AND, anybody that believed that the takeover - if it ever actually occurred - would change anything at the airport (airlines serving JAN, parking; baggage handling; courtesy of airline employees; ---- anything) was a real fool. All the things people want to bitch about at the airport are found in every other airport for a city our size, and are not things that are controlled by the Board of Directors of the airport.
But keep dreaming - Santa might even bring you a pony this Christmas, even after all these years.
@12:46
Obviously, you don't understand "consultants". Every county, every municipality, and every company hires consultants or they do the design "in-house". Very few locations in Mississippi have the money to have a variety of professionals on staff full-time. Granted, some consultants, just like some attorneys, are not worth the fees they charge. Others are your hard working friends and neighbors and give really good service for the money they are paid. To me, it is just like your household paying for dental work by a dentist. You certainly do not want or need one fulltime, but when you do, he offers his services for a fee.
Didn't the late mayor of Jackson Chokwe Lumumba (Farrakhan lite) throw out the airport board members and replace them with people of his ilk who held no other relevant qualifications?
I'd like to hear a figure of what y'all think the airport is worth.
"I'd like to hear a figure of what y'all think the airport is worth."
'Pends on whether you sellin' or buyin'.
Do the people of the state want the airport to look like the city streets in Jackson? If so then just leave them alone and soon the planes will have to dodge pot holes to land and take off.
This was nothing but a power grab by state officials. controlling the development so that they would get the benefits, contributions by developers, was one major reason. plus, they want to appoint the consultants, attorneys etc.
if state officials were really concerned about operations, then why not take over the sewer plant?
What the hell does the sewer plant have to do with the airport? Shouldn't the people filling up the sewer plant be the people who takes care of it?
I love how 10:47 and other idiots say this is a "State Takeover". Please explain what that means. Nobody from the state will be running the airport. The counties have two pics. the City has two pics, the National Guard has a rep, MDA has a rep and the Gov and Lt Gov have three total. Carl Newman runs the damn airport and will continue to. How does the state run any of this shit? That is such a tired and lame cop out.
@1:49 - the sewer treatment plant is run and controlled by the City of Jackson. Over the past several years, it has been found to be run improperly by governing authorities - DEQ, EPA, etc. It has not disposed of the sludge accumulated over the past decade.
And - the sewage going into the plant comes from parts of Rankin County, Madison County, and Jackson. So - the people filling it up includes several locales. People in these areas don't have a choice on where they decide to deposit their waste - or where it is treated. The effulant from the plant affects many communities from I-20 south, down the Pearl River.
The airport, on the other hand, serves those that choose to use it. You can fly or you can drive or you can take the bus. If you choose to fly, you can use this regional airport, or the one in Meridian, or the one in the Golden Triangle, or you can go to NOLA or Memphis. How it is run does not affect other people like the treatment plant does. And, BTW, it is being run very effectively when compared to other airports serving similar population areas.
So - the state taking over the treatment plant is not only a reasonable concept but one that should be done for the health and quality of life of probably 25% of the state. But there is no money or power to be gained from such a takeover.
The airport, on the other hand, has no arguable reason for a state takeover (and yes, 4:00, it is absolutely a state takeover when the ownership of the property is taken from the city and put into a board that the city does not appoint) other than there is money to be made from developing the unused land. Follow the money, and you will see why the airport is being confiscated by the state and not the regional treatment plant.
If the people in Jackson took care of their outhouses like they should there wouldn't be a problem with the sewer plant.
Post a Comment