Brian, as I said: "At maximum, in some future year, whenever the settlement between the TPA and the City didn't specify an amount for PILTS, this decision will matter."

The macro settlement covered the PILTs issue for 1999 - 2009. Given that the city signed a deal which recognized the TPAs belief in the value of the land, I can't believe that wouldn't have a bearing in any court case that will decide the value for 2010 - onwards. The court has to take into account that the city believes the 2009 amount to be fair. (I am not saying the 2009 amount should remain a fixed ceiling for value, only that the court cannot ignore real world events and agreements between parties on a lawsuit.)

A funny thing could result from an overly generous award to the city - since the airport is the most profitable element, it might make sense to split the Port Authority in two, into an airport authority and a Port Authority. Since the port wouldn't be able to support itself, it would revert back to a local agency which would require a city subsidy and the port would likely be scaled back considerably.

The airport would likely be able to support itself without having to support the rest of the port even if the most generous PILTs settlement happened.

Be careful what you wish for Brian, the federal government is not going to let an issue like this put an airline under, put a thousand or more people out of work, destabilize an IPO and, end orders at the Bombardier plant. You could end up with an Airport Authority on the waterfront.