FAA Wants EAA To Pay Them To Staff Oshkosh l

[rwanttaja]

Since the FAA wants to charge extra for ATC services during the EAA event due to an increase in traffic, does that mean the FAA will be charging commercial airlines for ATC services during the increase in traffic seen each year the day before Thanksgiving?

It's the difference between mere overtime, vs overtime plus per diem plus travel plus lodging costs (ever price an Oshkosh hotel during AirVenture?). The issue isn't a higher level of service, it's temporarily providing a service that isn't otherwise available 51 weeks out of the year. Plus, of course, the holiday rush benefits so many corporations and individuals it would be difficult to figure out who to bill. With Oshkosh, of course, it's being run solely for the benefit of one corporation. Bean counters like that.

In any case, once the FAA institutes user fees, you probably WILL see a surcharge for holidays.

As far as comparing it to the Arlington Fly-In, the number of operations there is drastically less... and in past years, there have been controllers remotely located like Oshkosh does. According to one of the organizers in another forum, the amount of support available to Arlington this year (and its costs) is still under negotation.

Ron Wanttaja

[martymayes]

Extra ATC service is provided for many events. Superbowl, Indy 500, NASCAR, Masters golf tournament. Not aware of anyone paying separately for that service.

[Chuck Arnold]

Okay, I see your point. I think that part of the AirVenture experience is that aviation is (or should be) a very big tent. There's room in here for everyone from ultralight pilots up to warbirds and aspiring C-5 pilots. Personally, I hope that everyone who wants to fly gets to in some form.

[Bill Berson]

As far as comparing it to the Arlington Fly-In, the number of operations there is drastically less... and in past years, there have been controllers remotely located like Oshkosh does. According to one of the organizers in another forum, the amount of support available to Arlington this year (and its costs) is still under negotation.

Ron Wanttaja

I have been to Oshkosh and Arlington many times and the traffic flow seems similar to me. Both can only handle about 6 planes in the pattern at any time. They both ask pilots to land long or short to maximize the runway use.
The difference is that Oshkosh has two runways... with different frequencies. Almost like two separate airports. That is the secret to future growth at Oshkosh, in my opinion. (connected but widely separated runways for different classes of aircraft and to reduce traffic to a pilot manageable level at each runway)

[FloridaJohn]

It's the difference between mere overtime, vs overtime plus per diem plus travel plus lodging costs (ever price an Oshkosh hotel during AirVenture?). The issue isn't a higher level of service, it's temporarily providing a service that isn't otherwise available 51 weeks out of the year.

I believe KOSH is a class D airport with an operating control tower. So ATC services is available at that airport during the entire year. During one week of the year, there is a need for a higher level of service, but it is not a service that is unavailable during the rest of the year.

Plus, of course, the holiday rush benefits so many corporations and individuals it would be difficult to figure out who to bill. With Oshkosh, of course, it's being run solely for the benefit of one corporation. Bean counters like that.

Seems to me, any airline that flies a plane on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving should be pretty easy to track down.

In any case, once the FAA institutes user fees, you probably WILL see a surcharge for holidays.

Maybe, maybe not. The airlines seem to have a much more effective lobby than GA does.

ATC was started to benefit the airlines, not GA. ATC handles many, many more flights each day for the airlines than it does for GA. The airlines pay more for ATC services (though fuel taxes) than GA does (also through fuel taxes), but GA is still paying for them even though most GA pilots don't use them. So, in a way, it seems that GA is helping to subsidize ATC for the airlines. And now, there is a move by the FAA to charge GA for "additional services" with a nebulous definition on what "additional" means. So it starts with EAA, then it is Sun N Fun, then maybe Arlington, then the airports around the Super Bowl, and then temporary towers set up for college football games, etc. Next thing you know, GA is both directly paying for ATC services during these "large events" and then subsidizing the ATC services used by the airlines during the rest of the year. Doesn't sound too fair to me.

So what happens if EAA tells the FAA, "no thanks?" Does the FAA have some responsibility for air safety even though EAA has said it is not going to pay extra? Or can they just wash their hands of it, and if there is an accident, tell everyone that air safety is no longer a priority and if EAA wants safety they have to pay for it?

I just don't see this as a workable solution for anyone.

[RV8505]

I believe KOSH is a class D airport with an operating control tower. So ATC services is available at that airport during the entire year. During one week of the year, there is a need for a higher level of service, but it is not a service that is unavailable during the rest of the year.


Seems to me, any airline that flies a plane on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving should be pretty easy to track down.


Maybe, maybe not. The airlines seem to have a much more effective lobby than GA does.

ATC was started to benefit the airlines, not GA. ATC handles many, many more flights each day for the airlines than it does for GA. The airlines pay more for ATC services (though fuel taxes) than GA does (also through fuel taxes), but GA is still paying for them even though most GA pilots don't use them. So, in a way, it seems that GA is helping to subsidize ATC for the airlines. And now, there is a move by the FAA to charge GA for "additional services" with a nebulous definition on what "additional" means. So it starts with EAA, then it is Sun N Fun, then maybe Arlington, then the airports around the Super Bowl, and then temporary towers set up for college football games, etc. Next thing you know, GA is both directly paying for ATC services during these "large events" and then subsidizing the ATC services used by the airlines during the rest of the year. Doesn't sound too fair to me.

So what happens if EAA tells the FAA, "no thanks?" Does the FAA have some responsibility for air safety even though EAA has said it is not going to pay extra? Or can they just wash their hands of it, and if there is an accident, tell everyone that air safety is no longer a priority and if EAA wants safety they have to pay for it?

I just don't see this as a workable solution for anyone.

People will wonder why the price of Oshkosh tickets will go up. I wonder how much the Bottled water will be?

[Bill Berson]

I don't see how EAA is responsible for payment in advance for an unknown number of aircraft operations.
Of course I am opposed to direct billing in this case, but if anything is imposed, it seems the FAA should send a bill to each N- number owner that requests ATC service. ( like Canada does, I think)

But lets hope that EAA gets this stopped (one way or another) before a precedent gets set.

[rwanttaja]

So what happens if EAA tells the FAA, "no thanks?"

Then AirVenture would get the standard amount of service that would be available on any given day. Contrary to opinion, Oshkosh is NOT the busiest airport in the world... it's the busiest airport in the world for the duration of the fly-in. The busiest airport in the world handles an average 100 aircraft per hour... and they've got a big Class B with Approach Control feeding airplanes to them. Oshkosh is mostly VFR pop-up arrivals, and won't even have the Ripon controllers to get the incoming stream straightened out.

About 5% of the total registered aircraft in the US come to the Oshkosh area for the Fly-In, usually on the first day or two. How many more planes than "Oshkosh normal" is that? Do we really expect two guys to handle it? Their easiest solution is to "temporarily" close the field.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I don't see how EAA is responsible for payment in advance for an unknown number of aircraft operations.
Of course I am opposed to direct billing in this case, but if anything is imposed, it seems the FAA should send a bill to each N- number owner that requests ATC service. ( like Canada does, I think)

But lets hope that EAA gets this stopped (one way or another) before a precedent gets set.

They're not expected to pay by the number of operations, but by the amount of support that will be deemed necessary. If the powers that be claim that, to maintain safe operation, 20 additional controllers are required, then EAA will have to pay overtime, per diem, travel, and lodging costs for 20 additional controllers.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I have been to Oshkosh and Arlington many times and the traffic flow seems similar to me. Both can only handle about 6 planes in the pattern at any time. They both ask pilots to land long or short to maximize the runway use.

Bill, I'm local too, and have flown into the Arlington fly-in a number of times. I've never been there when it's been busy enough to actually *require* that temporary tower, much less the Ripon-like checkpoint to the Southeast. If Oshkosh is no busier than Arlington, then I think EAA could say "good riddance" to the need for extra controllers.

But I really don't think that's the case. About 15,000 aircraft show up for Oshkosh, and I think Arlington is about a tenth of that.

Ron Wanttaja