[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 114 (Wednesday, September 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S9883]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 2435. A bill to permit the denial of airport access to certain air 
carriers; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


            airport protection from forced scheduled service

 Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
to address a problem facing small reliever airports that do not accept 
scheduled service operations. Centennial Airport is a small reliever 
airport near Denver, Colorado, where operations consist primarily of 
small private chartered and business planes. A unique situation exists 
at Centennial Airport involving certain charter services and a loophole 
in the Federal regulations governing scheduled flights.
  Centennial Airport is not certificated for scheduled flight service. 
In fact, the Airport Authority, with strong local backing, has banned 
scheduled service at Centennial. According to Federal law, the Federal 
Aviation Administration cannot force any airport to become 
certificated. The airport is not equipped with a terminal, baggage 
system, or passenger security. Furthermore, Denver International 
Airport is less than 25 miles from Centennial, and has the capacity to 
handle additional scheduled service operations.
  A situation arose more than three years ago when a company called 
Centennial Express Airlines, Inc., began charter service at Centennial, 
but immediately announced that the airline's service would continue as 
scheduled service. The Airport Authority sued and the County District 
Court ordered the flights stopped. In April of this year the Colorado 
Supreme Court ruled in favor of Centennial Airport Authority's ban. The 
Court cited the safe operation of the airport as a priority, and upheld 
the airport's discretion to prohibit scheduled passenger service.
  While this decision protected the airport's right to refuse scheduled 
service, a similar situation recently arose with another company, 
Colorado Connection Executive Air Services, and the result has been 
detrimental for Centennial airport.
  In 1997, Colorado Connection proposed to start public charter 
passenger service pursuant to a regular and public schedule. Colorado 
Connection, which is entirely owned by Air One Charter, tried using a 
combination of Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation 
Administration exemptions to offer scheduled service under Federal 
regulations, because the company that books the flights does not own 
the aircraft and the schedule is not officially published in the 
airline guide. The use of two different corporate names allowed Air One 
Charter to fly the scheduled passenger service under Colorado 
Connection without subjecting the airline to FAA scheduled service 
regulations. Air One Charter indicated intent to market 6-12 daily 
flights to various Colorado cities and to contract baggage services for 
their flights.
  The Centennial Airport Authority unanimously voted to deny airport 
access to Colorado Connection's scheduled service. The vote took place 
in April 1998 and a month later the FAA initiated a part 16 
investigation. The FAA claims that the Airport Authority's move to deny 
service is unjustly discriminatory. Last week the FAA issued a decision 
to pull Federal funding for Centennial Airport if the ban on scheduled 
service is not lifted. This decision is in direct conflict with the 
Colorado Supreme Court's ruling on the issue. It is the result of a 
loophole in a law that was not intended to force small airports to take 
on the responsibility and burden of supporting scheduled service.
  Immediately following the announcement of the FAA's decision, the 
owner of Centennial Express was reported by the Denver Post to have 
plans to begin scheduled flights from Centennial Airport.
  I am proposing legislation to rectify this situation and uphold the 
authority of airports like Centennial to ban all scheduled service if 
they choose to do so. This bill would allow a general aviation airport 
to deny access to a part 380 public charter operator that operates as a 
scheduled service, and clarifies that such action would not be in 
violation of requirements for federal airport aid. This will not 
require any airport to do anything, and it will not allow an airport to 
discriminate against one scheduled service operator and not another.
  This amendment is nearly identical to language that the House 
Commerce Committee has included in its FAA Reauthorization Act. It 
would prohibit the FAA from charging discrimination if an airport 
chooses to deny access to scheduled service operators. It will only 
apply to reliever airports that are not certificated under Part 139 to 
handle scheduled service and airports within 35 miles of a large hub 
airport.
  I am not aware specifically of any other reliever airports existing 
outside of Colorado that have an interest in this legislation, however, 
I hope that my colleagues see the importance of protecting the right of 
small airports and surrounding communities to refuse all scheduled 
service operations.

                          ____________________