Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airports Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers debate bill to require free short‑term access for light private aircraft at publicly funded airports
Summary
Supporters said House Bill 731 would protect private pilots from unexpected fees when dropping off passengers at publicly funded airports; airport managers and airport authorities warned the measure could conflict with federal grant assurances and hurt airport finances. The committee voted against advancing the bill and later tabled it.
House Transportation Committee members heard competing testimony on House Bill 731, which would require publicly funded airports to allow light general‑aviation aircraft (defined in the bill as aircraft weighing less than 9,000 pounds and operating under 14 CFR part 91) to land, taxi, park (tie‑down) and provide access through security fencing for passengers and crew free of charge for a limited period.
Sponsor Representative Shane Klakken described the bill as protecting pilots who make short stops to drop off or pick up passengers. "All we're asking for is fairness," Klakken said, describing scenarios in which a small private pilot lands, taxis in, lets passengers out through an FBO or security gate and later receives a bill. Supporters, including Tim Robertson of the Montana Pilots Association and Jack Galt, said private pilots are being charged substantial fees in some markets and that published fee information is often lacking.
Opponents — including Brad Schuster of AOPA, Ross Marty of the Montana Airport Managers Association and Jeff Wadekamper of the Helena Regional Airport Authority — urged changes or reject the bill as written. Airport managers said state airports do not receive state operating funds and depend on FAA Airport Improvement Program grants, which require airports to be as financially self‑sustaining as possible. Marty and Wadekamper said restricting the ability to generate revenue would jeopardize airports’ capacity to meet match requirements and maintain operations. AOPA offered substitute language requiring greater transparency from airports before imposing fees rather than an outright statewide prohibition.
Committee debate focused on whether the bill would bar only undisclosed or automated billing, or would more broadly restrict airport and FBO fees, and on how to treat security and TSA requirements for access through airport fencing. Representative Staffman and others pressed witnesses on how federal grant assurances and FAA policies would interact with the proposed requirement.
The committee recorded a roll‑call vote on a motion to pass the bill; the vote failed 6 in favor, 8 opposed. A subsequent motion to table the bill was then approved. The bill was not advanced from committee in the hearing record.
Why it matters: The bill addresses a tension between pilots’ expectations for short, informal stops at publicly supported airports and airports’ and FBOs’ need to generate revenue for operations and matching funds for federal grants. Stakeholders offered competing remedies: a statewide prohibition, improved transparency, or local‑level solutions.
What’s next: Committee members voted against advancing the bill and then voted to table it; sponsors said work would continue with stakeholders.
