## Facts

- The Port Authority owned and operated LaGuardia, JFK, and Newark airports and imposed a “perimeter rule” at LaGuardia barring most nonstop flights longer than 1,500 miles to reduce congestion and shift longer-haul traffic to JFK/Newark.
- The FAA regulated LaGuardia capacity through “slots” authorizing landings or takeoffs within specified time intervals.
- Western, an air carrier with a hub in Salt Lake City, obtained LaGuardia slots through an FAA lottery and sought to use them for three daily nonstop round trips between LaGuardia and Salt Lake City.
- Because Salt Lake City is beyond 1,500 miles, the Port Authority refused to allow the proposed nonstop service at LaGuardia.
- Western sued seeking injunctive relief, alleging the perimeter rule was preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) and violated provisions of federal aviation law; Western later dropped any § 1983 theory.
- After a bench trial, the district court dismissed the complaint; Western appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether federal aviation statutes cited by Western (including ADA preemption and airport-access provisions) implied a private right of action allowing an airline to sue an airport proprietor for injunctive relief.
2. Whether the ADA’s preemption clause barred the Port Authority’s 1,500-mile perimeter rule as a state or local rule “relating to” airline routes or services.
3. Whether the perimeter rule was unlawful under federal standards requiring reasonable, nondiscriminatory airport access and use.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of Western’s complaint, substantially for the reasons stated by the district court.
- The court held there was no implied private right of action under the federal provisions Western invoked.
- The court rejected Western’s ADA preemption challenge, treating the perimeter rule as a permissible airport-proprietor restriction directed to congestion management rather than forbidden economic regulation.
- The court upheld the rule as reasonable and nondiscriminatory under the federal airport-access standards asserted by Western.

## Legal Principles

- Federal aviation statutes that provide administrative enforcement mechanisms and do not clearly confer individual enforcement rights generally do not support implied private causes of action for carriers challenging airport operating restrictions.
- The ADA’s preemption of state laws relating to airline “rates, routes, or services” does not categorically eliminate an airport proprietor’s ability to impose reasonable, nonarbitrary, nondiscriminatory access restrictions grounded in operational concerns such as congestion.
- Airport rules that apply by neutral criteria (e.g., distance) and are supported by legitimate facility-management objectives may be upheld as reasonable and nondiscriminatory where adequate alternative facilities remain available for affected operations.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld LaGuardia’s 1,500-mile perimeter rule and affirmed dismissal of Western’s suit because the cited federal aviation provisions did not create an implied private right of action and the rule, as a proprietor congestion measure, was not invalidated by ADA preemption or the federal airport-access standards asserted.


W. Air Lines, Inc. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 817 F.2d 222 (2d Cir. 1987)