When Safety Meets Competition: What the FAA’s Recent JFK Ground Handling Decisions Mean for Airports and Terminal Operators

Airport sponsors and terminal operators navigate a delicate balance between safety, operational efficiency, and competition – particularly in the increasingly complex world of ground handling. Recent FAA decisions concerning FAA Part 13 complaints involving John F. Kennedy International Airport (“JFK”) bring that balance into sharp focus and carry important implications for airports, terminal operators, and ground service providers nationwide.

In a pair of closely related Notices of Potential Noncompliance issued in October 2025 and January 2026, the FAA scrutinized JFK’s practice of capping the number of ground handlers permitted to operate at certain terminals. Although the disputes arose from FAA Part 13 complaints filed by MSN Air Service, Inc. (“MSN”) and Ground Services International Incorporated d/b/a dnata (“dnata”), the FAA’s reasoning extends far beyond JFK and provides a roadmap for how similar policies will be evaluated across the national airport system.

The Core Issue: Ground Handler Caps Under Federal Grant Assurances

At the heart of both cases is Grant Assurance 22, which requires federally funded airports to make their facilities “available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the airport.” JFK’s sponsor, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (“Port Authority”), allowed private terminal operators to limit the number of ground handlers serving passenger aircraft – often citing safety concerns, ramp congestion, and space constraints.

The FAA made clear that such limitations are not inherently unlawful. Airports may restrict aeronautical access when necessary for safety or operational necessity. But the key word is necessary – and necessity must be supported by evidence, not mere unsupported assertions.

The FAA concluded that JFK’s ground handler caps at Terminals 1, 4, and 7 were not adequately justified or supported, resulting in a preliminary finding that the Port Authority violated Grant Assurance 22(a).

Why an Airport Sponsor’s Conclusory Claims of “Safety” Alone are not Sufficient

Safety is – and must remain – a paramount concern in airfield operations. However, the FAA emphasized that merely invoking safety without supporting evidence does not relieve airport sponsors of the obligation to demonstrate how and why a restriction is required.

In its investigation, the FAA closely examined years of ramp incident data, congestion claims, and operational assumptions. While the Port Authority documented numerous vehicle incidents, particularly at Terminal 4, the FAA found no meaningful analysis tying those incidents to  ramp congestion and/or the number of ground handlers operating at the terminal. The FAA reasoned that considerably larger terminals (such as Terminal 4) have more vehicular incidents simply because they experience far more vehicular operations. Absent a data-driven causation explanation, higher vehicular incident counts alone do not establish that additional ground handlers would compromise safety.

Equally significant was the FAA’s rejection of the assumption that adding ground handlers necessarily increases congestion. Indeed, the FAA recognized that aircraft movement is constrained by gate availability, not by the number of service providers. As business shifts among handlers, equipment usage and ramp activity may redistribute rather than expand. To that end, the FAA concluded that the Port Authority had not presented any evidence that an increase in the number of ground handlers allowed to operate at Terminals 1, 4, or 7 will significantly, or even moderately, increase congestion.

Operational Space and Facilities: Reframing the Constraint

Space limitations were another justification cited by the Port Authority for limiting the number of ground handlers, particularly the availability of break rooms, locker rooms, and support facilities. Here again, the FAA applied a practical lens.

The FAA questioned whether ground handlers must lease airside terminal space at all, especially when landside or off-terminal facilities are available. FAA also noted that Terminals 1 and 4 lease a significant amount of space to non-aeronautical users. The FAA opined that if the “Terminal Operators of Terminals 1 and 4 wish to require that ground handlers can only provide aeronautical services at these respective terminals if they lease break room and locker room space at these terminals then the Terminal Operators must grant ground handlers preference in leasing space at the Terminals over non-aeronautical tenants.” The FAA further noted that “there is ample square footage currently being leased to non-aeronautical tenants at Terminals 1 and 4 that could instead be leased to ground handlers for break rooms and locker rooms.” 

As such, the FAA determined that the Port Authority did not demonstrate that “Terminals 1, 4, and 7 cannot accommodate additional ground handlers because they lack the space in the respective Terminals for additional break rooms and locker rooms for ground handlers.”

Airport Sponsors Cannot Contract Away Their Obligation to Comply With Grant Assurance Obligations

One of the Port Authority’s threshold arguments was that Grant Assurance 22 does not apply to a private tenant’s selection of ground handlers for operation within its exclusive use lease with the Port Authority. In short, the Port Authority claimed that private terminal operators are free to choose which ground handlers may operate on their ramps without violating Grant Assurance 22 because only airport sponsors are bound by the federal Grant Assurances. The FAA disagreed.

The FAA reaffirmed that airport sponsors remain responsible for ensuring compliance with the Grant Assurances, even when facilities are operated by private entities pursuant to an exclusive lease with an airport sponsor. Indeed, the FAA noted that “pursuant to Grant Assurance 22(b) the Port Authority is services to the public. Specifically, required to insert and enforce provisions in agreements reached with corporations that engage in aeronautical activities, for furnishing services to the public at the airport, that such providers furnish said services on a reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, basis to all users.”

The FAA noted that the Port Authority’s argument would lead to disastrous results when taken to its logical conclusion. Specifically, the FAA noted that if it “accepted … [the Port Authority’s] argument, then Terminal Operators would be free to charge ground handlers unreasonably high fees and/or prohibit the use of independent ground handlers at the Terminal entirely. For instance, a Terminal Operator could provide its own ground handling service, prohibit the use of independent ground handling services at the Terminal, and charge airlines unreasonably high fees to use the ground handling service owned by the Terminal Operator which would operate as a monopoly.”

For airports that rely heavily on privatized terminal operations, this point is critical: delegation by the airport sponsor does not relieve it – or its lessees – of the obligation to comply with the Grant Assurances.

What Airports and Aviation Businesses Should Take From These Decisions

The FAA made clear that caps on the number of ground handlers at a terminal must be justified, data-driven, and revisited as conditions change. Although airports may limit the number of ground handlers based upon legitimate safety concerns, those concerns must be supported by objective data.

Key lessons for aviation businesses include:

• Airport sponsors retain ultimate responsibility for compliance, even when the airport sponsors contract with private terminal operators.
• Safety-based restrictions require evidence and data, not generalized and unsupported claims.
• Competition among ground handlers is presumed to benefit the public, absent proven harm.
• Space and congestion arguments must account for how operations actually function day to day.

What’s Next?

The FAA determined that the Port Authority’s current cap of one ground handler at Terminal 1, and two independent ground handlers at Terminals 4 and 7 is not adequately supported and justified. The FAA directed that if “the Port Authority wishes to retain a higher cap on the number of ground handlers at each Terminal, however, it must provide an analysis for each of Terminals 1, 4, and 7 that adequately supports and justifies the ground handler cap set for each Terminal. “

The Port Authority has submitted its corrective action plan. How the FAA responds to the Port Authority’s corrective action plan could set an important precedent extending far beyond JFK. We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as new information becomes available.