A federal judge has issued a ruling permitting Westchester County airport to limit flights out of private terminals by carriers that sell seats to the public. However the ruling will be appealed and operations continue as normal in the interim.
Westchester County wishes it didn’t have an airport. However they can’t shut it down. They’ve taken federal grant money, so federal rules apply. Nonetheless they make it as tough to operate there as possible because of noise, and because to the area’s hedge fund managers making commercial air travel expensive and inaccessible means keeping undesirables away.
The Westchester County Executive, in office since 2018, has been hostile to any airport use. The County denied FBO operator Million Air the ability to construct a new terminal to which it was contractually entitled for reasons deemed not to be “reasonable as a matter of law.”
In 2022, Westchester sued Blade, JSX, and XO for selling flights with more than 9 seats while using private terminals at the airport.
The airport adopted a new policy in January 2022 that required these carriers to operate out of the main terminal, with TSA screening rather than handling their own screening according to TSA-approved procedures. (That would also make them subject to the lottery system, limiting their operations.)
Two months later they sued, but entered into an agreement not to enforce their rule until they had obtained a court order from their suit (this allowed the airport to avoid a preliminary injunction against them, while the courts sort out whether these airport rules violate federal law).
United States District Judge Philip M. Halpern, who was nominated to serve in the Southern District of New York by President Trump at the suggestion of Fox News commentator Jeanine Pirro (the former wife of Judge Halpern’s law firm partner who was convicted of tax fraud), issued a ruling saying that the airport could enforce its terminal use rules, arguing that the airport has latitude to set safety and operational limits. Ironically, at least one Trump family member is a JSX customer out of Westchester.
That lets the airport kick operators out of private terminals and subject them to flight limitations inside the main terminal, keeping private air travel private. JSX says they “will be challenging the opinion on appeal.”
The ruling also has implications for Bark Air, the high end startup airline for dogs flying Gulfstream G5s between New York, LA and London. Its first revenue flight, operated by Talon Air, was May 23. They offer service for up to 15 dogs and owners, operating from private terminals – with no crates or carriers and toys, blankets, and treats. When buying a $6,000 one-way from New York to LA for a dog, their human flies free, in the New York area out of Westchester.
Credit: Bark Air
(HT: @crucker)
like it or not, fair or not, all commercial airline operations are going to be in the same terminals that all part 121 airlines use.
It’s either private or the big 4 plus a few other interloper airlines that can’t make money
I suspect Bark Air will find another NY area airport to use provided there isn’t a quick appeal and injunction. Not like there aren’t a few options and I’m sure many would welcome them. BTW not the “big 3” but places like Teterboro, Republic or MacArthur.
Lost in the airport’s policies or the judges opinion is any consideration of what provides the best service for the customer. It is time for the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to play a dominant role.
It is really too bad that this type of childish behaviour is allowed to go on between airports at all. You think that airport staff & operators could work together in a civil manner,but it seems from what was conveyed in the article that certain airport hubs wanna act like Complete bullies and they wanna squash any type of competition that comes along and I don’t think that is fair play at all.
@tim dunn – first, it’s important to call out bad policy, saying the process will yield the bad policy just begs the question.
second, carriers cannot just operate out of the main terminal at HPN as you suppose. there is an airport limit of 240 passengers per half hour and 4 flights per half hour. there is a quarterly lottery to dole out those slots.
Come up to Newburgh! Right off the Thruway . Great sccess. Leave snooty Wetcheater. It’s a great service. People will come ro you.
Gary,
I don’t disagree with you that this is all wrong but the reality is that these non-airline airlines tried something that the big boys in your home state decided they wanted to squash – and they are succeeding.
HPN is indeed doing this to cut the number of passengers that can use the airport.
my point is simply that there is enough in the law that will keep all of these non-airlines from remaining with the business model they have.
US federal judges yet again siding with corporate leviathans and big(ger) money over consumers and small business owners? That shouldn’t be a surprise. Whether judges are appointed by Republicans or Democrats, the one thing you can count on is for the judges to be corporate apologists and apologists for big money. That is the area where they are most consistent regardless of who appointed them.
GU,
did it occur to you that the laws were written well before these non-airline airlines and these non-airline airlines thought they found a loophole which the judges manage to see?
Our legislators and bureaucrats also tend to be big corporate apologists. Just look at the revolving door and the lobbyist and donor game and put that in perspective of the tendency for people to go along to get along with colleagues and counterparts even when they shouldn’t do so. And so we end up with corporate apologist outcomes because of that too. Federal judges are part and parcel of that dynamic.
the rule looks very simple–follow it
This article needs to be updated. Officially from JSX they will be allowed to continue to operate at HPN from the private area as always normally while their now appeal to this ruling is pending
thanks for the update, David
@Tim Dunn – loophole is a perjorative term used by people who don’t like a certain legal practice to imply the practice is somehow shady. If it’s legal, it’s legal.
Bob,
Loopholes are legal but the whole reason this is an issue is that the “loophole” conflicts with other laws or aviation principles which is why the loopholes will be closed.
I like the idea of JSX etc but it is a concept that goes against nearly every other legal structure and this ruling in HPN – while still being appealed – is going to breed other cases to shut down the whole non-airline airline system
The best path forward is for there to be a clear legal system for carriers like JSX to operate.