Goldenshield From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4256 times:
Fair use quote:
Quote: The city auditor's office on Sunday said the airline owes the city $482,244 in various fees and interest for using DIA from 2000 to 2004. Charges include $276,585 in underpaid landing fees, apparently due to Great Lakes Aviation using the wrong aircraft weights to calculate the fees after it switched aircraft models.
F9Animal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3969 times:
Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 2): Either way, not paying bills is bad, and giving false data for billing purposes is fraud.
Quoting Goldenshield (Thread starter): Charges include $276,585 in underpaid landing fees, apparently due to Great Lakes Aviation using the wrong aircraft weights to calculate the fees after it switched aircraft models.
Underpaid and not paying anything at all are 2 totally different issues. I doubt Great Lakes is even remotley in any position to be considered in "trouble". I am sure some of the bankrupt carriers out there are millions in the hole with airports around the nation, and I would even imagine that some of them have not paid a penny for it either.
N757KW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3809 times:
The airline I work for did something very similar at a major airport. Apparently, it was determined that landing fees were being paid for the passenger flight, but not the cargo flight. The airport brought it to our attention willing to work out a deal.
After a little investigation, it was confirmed that the landing fees for the cargo flights had not been paid for a number of years. The airline paid very quickly once an amount was agreed upon. It was not small.
I would be willing to bet this happens at many airports if no one is verifying aircraft types being used and if it is cargo or passenger.
I'm no lawyer, but I'd think that "fraud" would require some intent to be demonstrated.
Given that landing fees are based on an aircraft's max structural landing weight (irrespective of whether there's only 1 pax aboard or a butt in every seat), I can much more readily see the situation where a non-operational "clerical" person didn't know the financial effect of switching to an aircraft with a higher MLW than what was previously used.
"Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity"
Floridaflyboy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3507 times:
Quoting OOer (Reply 5): Legal trouble maybe not yet, but its no big secret that Big Sky isn't in the best financial shape. Go for a ride up at their HDQ in CYS and take a look at the E120s with no engines up there...
I think you mean Great Lakes. Big Sky has absolutely nothing to do with this.