At stake is what private jet center JetAway Aviation can and cannot do under a lease assignment and through-the-fence agreement with Montrose County.
Also at issue is whether Jet Center Partners (Black Canyon), the fixed-base operator at Montrose Regional Airport, was damaged by JetAway’s advertising methods, and whether JetAway trespassed by grading portions of the county’s property during a construction project that was ultimately halted.
 JetAway Aviation CEO Steve Stuhmer laughs with JetAway Partner Michael Girdner, right, during a recess from closing arguments in the civil court proceedings between JetAway Aviation, Montrose County and Jet Center Partners at the Montrose County Justice Center Thursday afternoon. Judge James Schum's written ruling will be issued at a later date. (Barton Glasser / Daily Press) Advertisement |
JetAway bid to become the fixed-base operator, or FBO, when the county decided to privatize those non-commercial air services in 2005, but lost out to JCP. It sued and also filed a complaint with the Federal Aviation Administration when the county delayed deciding on another FBO proposal. That first FAA complaint was denied; JetAway has since filed a new one, along with a federal anti trust claim that alleges the county conspired with JCP to destroy its business.
These federal actions are still pending.
JetAway argued at trial its lease and other agreement allowed it to provide all services except for aircraft fuel sales. It said the definition of “FBO” was looser than what JCP and the county separately argued it was, and it did not have to sell fuel in order to be an FBO.
Montrose County argued JetAway violated its agreements and needed to meet airport minimum standards for off-airport operations. It wants an injunction.
Jet Center Partners said JetAway deliberately confused consumers via deceptive advertising into believing JetAway was the county-sanctioned FBO. As a result, JCP says it lost business.
Each side made its final case before Judge James Schum Thursday. Schum interrogated all attorneys concerning how the applicable contracts and evidence supported their individual claims.
His written ruling will be issued at a later date, perhaps weeks from now, because of the complexity of the case.
• Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.
• Be relevant. Keep your comments on point.
• See the guidelines for TalkAbout. Perhaps your comment is best for that community forum, available from the home page, instead of commenting on a particular story.
Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. Montrose Press is not liable for messages from third parties.
DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in montrosepress.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Montrose Press. Montrose Press does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Montrose Press spokespersons.
Thank you for your comments!