Allegheny County Airport Authority CEO testifies about concession company 'putting us at risk'

Allegheny County Airport Authority CEO Christina Cassotis told a judge Monday that leaving the concessions company in place at Pittsburgh International Airport is a security concern.

“We cannot risk having them out there doing business as usual,” she said.

Cassotis was the last witness called as part of a multi-day hearing over the authority’s termination last month of a contract with Fraport Pittsburgh. The subsidiary, whose parent company has its headquarters in Germany, runs retail, food and beverage concessions at the airport.

Fraport, which has been at the airport since 1992, has the contract through 2029. However, on June 15, the authority terminated its lease with the company, alleging breach of contract, and evicted them from the facility.

Related:

• Allegheny County Airport Authority, company in legal battle over concessions contract
• Testimony begins in question of lease termination for Pittsburgh airport concessions operator

Fraport filed an emergency injunction with the court to allow it to continue its operations, which Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Christine Ward granted.

Ward now must decide whether to allow Fraport to continue its work or remove them while the breach-of-contract lawsuit works its way through the court system.

Ward gave the parties 10 days to file additional briefs on the injunction issue before she renders her decision.

Cassotis, who testified for more than two hours, told the court that while Fraport is continuing to do its work at the airport — including daily walk-throughs and inspections of the various retailers — authority employees are now accompanying Fraport staff when that happens.

“We’re making sure it’s getting done,” she said. “They charge us. They’re making millions of dollars a year, and I have to hire on top of it. It’s a distraction.”

In its lawsuit against the authority, Fraport said it was offered a $5 million “take-it-or-leave-it” offer to walk away from its contract last summer.

When Fraport rejected the offer, the complaint alleged Cassotis said “‘there isn’t a contract that the county can’t get out of. Not one.’”

On Monday, Cassotis said in the days immediately after Fraport’s lease termination, the authority intended to get approval from its board to allow it to take over working with the subtenants that occupy the airport’s retail space.

“There’s lot of people that do what they do,” Cassotis said. “It’s not a unique skill set. It’s not rocket science.”

Fraport alleged during the case that Cassotis was upset with the kinds of retail businesses the company was bringing in.

On cross-examination, Cassotis admitted to having concerns like that.

“I’ve been frustrated by their tenant attraction ability, but that wasn’t a reason to get out of the contract,” she said.

On direct examination, Cassotis testified that Fraport was given notice repeatedly about potential defaults in the contract — including days when not a single Fraport employee had their security badge swiped, indicating no staff was on the premises that day.

One example of that, she said, was June 5.

However, in earlier testimony in the hearing, a Fraport employee testified to having a picture of an inspection from that day.

Cassotis suggested the photo was from a different day and that its date had been edited.

To demonstrate, she took her attorney’s iPhone, snapped a picture and then changed the date on it. It took less than a minute.

“Voila,” she said, “it’s June 5. It concerns me that was offered as evidence, when it’s so easily disputable.”

Cassotis told the court that, repeatedly and for years, the authority has asked Fraport officials for data on sales and revenue, but each time was rebuffed.

In addition, Cassotis said, Fraport received repeated notice about security concerns — such as an unsecured knife at a food business and open doors at a closed restaurant.

“I’m aware we sent them four letters, and I’m aware we waited 10 months to get them to do something,” Cassotis said.

When they didn’t, she said, the authority chose to terminate the contract.

“We expect them to fix things, and we expect them to know they are broken.”

Although Fraport officials who testified said it is not a security company, Cassotis said Fraport has an obligation to provide a level of security in the airport.

“We’re relying on them for a layer of security services, that if it’s not provided, it’s a weakness,” she said. “Bad guys just need one time when we’re not looking, and these guys are putting us at risk.

“They do not share our commitment to safety and security.”