"Gene Kearns" wrote:
The fallacy of this argument is that (1) the FAA is not in the
business of protecting FBOs any more than the aircraft owner's
commercial interests and (2) the tax money is accepted by an airport
authority..... not the FBO.

I agree, but it's not that the FAA seeks to protect the FBO per se,
it's that they may have no choice but to allow the airport
operator/sponsor to write rules which reach an accommodation
satisfactory to all parties. One of FAA's purposes in grant
management is to keep reliever airports open and get full use of
taxpayer money as dictated by Congress. In a case where fuel sales
are judged important enough to dictate survivability of the airport,
I just can't see FAA stepping in to defend the right of tentants to
divert fuel dollars to local gas stations. It's not just the FBO
that's hurt; the City loses on the per-gallon fees.

What would happen in our case, as in the past where the City found its
budgets threatened, is local Congress people intervene to "assist" all
the parties in reaching an accommodation. It's unrealistic to me that
FAA would initiate an action to trigger this process over an issue
such as self-fueling. Their position at the table would be
indefensible, since the cover by their own documents is the fuzzy
definition of "reasonable restrictions."

Tax funds are for the many not
the airport authority and/or the FBO.... thus the laws prohibiting
fraud and good-ole-boy networks.... the federal prohibition against
granting exclusive aeronautical rights.

Except FAA grant money may not be used for airport operations and
maintenance, only capital improvements. Funds to operate come from us
users, plus commonly subsidies by local gov't. There are limits to
the latter that voters will tolerate, leaving only users to foot the
bills.

There's no good ole boy network at my airport; the City and the FBO
don't like each other at all. But the voters are getting fed up with
the airport, and the FBO has this aversion to net operating losses.

Fred F.