FAA Wants EAA To Pay Them To Staff Oshkosh l

[rwanttaja]

The first question that has to be answered before any 'negotiations' start is, "Is air safety for sale?"

Well, yes it is. It always HAS been.

There's an implied phrase any time you talk about the FAA's mission or its responsibility for safety. "[The FAA's] continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world" must be followed by the phrase "...to the limit of the funds allocated by Congress."

It's funny how much folks forget this. Mode C transponders? 406 MHz ELTs? ADS-B systems? If the FAA's overwhelming responsibility is safety, shouldn't they be GIVING this stuff to us?

But no: The FAA has to live on a budget. And a budget means you make hard choices, EVEN with safety.

I haven't heard the actual dollar amount the FAA is demanding, but for the sake of argument, say it's one million dollars.

In other words, EAA is asking the FAA for one million dollars' worth of services to help protect about 50,000 aircraft pilots and passengers per year. Seems a reasonable expense.

But then someone from, say, Atlanta-Hartsfield airport stands up and says: "For one million dollars, we can upgrade **** and protect 92 MILLION passengers per year."

So, where does the hard-headed "Safety is paramount (to the limit of the funds allocated by Congress)" FAA budgeteer put that one million dollars?

Sure, we'd prefer they cover this by transferring money from the account that covers carpet-cleaning of Huerta's office. But remember, this was all triggered by sequestration. I posted a link to the FAA's budget summary a couple of days back; about 900 pages just for a summary that didn't even go low enough to show the Oshkosh support. It probably takes months to prepare; no way they could rework the entire thing once the sequester went into effect (and there was no budget to pay for "what if" work BEFORE the sequester).

The only thing they could possibly do, in the short time they had, is to cut back all items by about the same percent. If the EAA support was listed under "safety", there might be some hope to protect it...but it was probably listed under "Operations," and that's one of the things that's getting pared back. Some FAA accountant saw this as a low-hanging fruit, especially since it was primarily benefiting a private corporation, and other private groups were already paying for such services. With time to work with the next year's budget, they might be able to re-allocate funds to cover Oshkosh. Doesn't help this year, though.

It's not the fault of EAA, it's not the fault of the FAA, its the fault of those spineless representatives and senators (from BOTH sides of the aisle) who refused to do their jobs. Too many of them saw political suicide in voting to reduce things like the defense budget, so they threw it up to a process where they could deny responsibility ("Hey, it was automatic"). Hand grenades instead of scalpels.

The only thing these weasels fear is losing their jobs at the next election. That's one of the reason all of us should be hammering our political representatives over the EAA issue; let them know we aren't happy with they're doing, and encourage them push the FAA to fix this important safety gap.

Ron Wanttaja

[RV8505]

The EAA shouldn't eat the cost of Air Traffic Control . They should institute a surcharge and pass the cost on at the gate, camping, soft drinks and water. Along with the price increases signage to explain why the prices are going up and who to contact at the FAA. Nothing like a million mad people to get your attention.

[Floatsflyer]

The EAA shouldn't eat the cost of Air Traffic Control . They should institute a surcharge and pass the cost on at the gate, camping, soft drinks and water. Along with the price increases signage to explain why the prices are going up and who to contact at the FAA. Nothing like a million mad people to get your attention.

Too late to apply add-ons for gate admissions. The exhibitors are more likely better equipped to manage a surcharge. Not at all in favour of increases tacked on to food and beverages.

[martymayes]

Nothing like a million mad people to get your attention.

Or even 200,000 mad people. But many, like me would probably just find something else to do during the last week of July every summer.

[rwanttaja]

Too late to apply add-ons for gate admissions. The exhibitors are more likely better equipped to manage a surcharge. Not at all in favour of increases tacked on to food and beverages.

But it might be the best way to recoup a sudden last-minute expense.

Actual numbers are hard to come by, here. AFAIK, the actual AMOUNT the FAA is asking for hasn't been released. Let's assume the FAA has requested a nice round $1,000,000. IIRC, Sun-N-Fun had to pay something like $285,000.

(Side note: Little or no furor was raised over SnF having to pay for the same services Oshkosh is being billed for. No doubt this encouraged the FAA to dun AirVenture.)

Sun-N-Fun got a local tourist group to pay some of it, but Florida is SO tourism-business intensive, I suspect the same level of support won't be available.

So, how many people come to AirVenture? The data isn't public. EAA announced an attendance of 500,000 last year, but the way *I* understand it, it doesn't mean a half-million people came to the show. It's basically people-days; basically it's saying they averaged ~72,000 guests per day over the seven days of the show.

But what it does mean that, if they can get each guest to pony up roughly an additional $2 per day, they've got the FAA services covered. That's not really that bad. If they added a surcharge to admission, the rise in a weekly admission would be just $14. They could add a 25-cent surcharge to each meal item and probably make it.

If the amount the FAA's trying to bill for is less than a million (I'm guessing it's actually around $600,000), it's just that much less they have to pass on to attendees.

Ron Wanttaja

[RV8505]

But it might be the best way to recoup a sudden last-minute expense.

Actual numbers are hard to come by, here. AFAIK, the actual AMOUNT the FAA is asking for hasn't been released. Let's assume the FAA has requested a nice round $1,000,000. IIRC, Sun-N-Fun had to pay something like $285,000.

(Side note: Little or no furor was raised over SnF having to pay for the same services Oshkosh is being billed for. No doubt this encouraged the FAA to dun AirVenture.)

Sun-N-Fun got a local tourist group to pay some of it, but Florida is SO tourism-business intensive, I suspect the same level of support won't be available.

So, how many people come to AirVenture? The data isn't public. EAA announced an attendance of 500,000 last year, but the way *I* understand it, it doesn't mean a half-million people came to the show. It's basically people-days; basically it's saying they averaged ~72,000 guests per day over the seven days of the show.

But what it does mean that, if they can get each guest to pony up roughly an additional $2 per day, they've got the FAA services covered. That's not really that bad. If they added a surcharge to admission, the rise in a weekly admission would be just $14. They could add a 25-cent surcharge to each meal item and probably make it.

If the amount the FAA's trying to bill for is less than a million (I'm guessing it's actually around $600,000), it's just that much less they have to pass on to attendees.

Ron Wanttaja

It is not to late to add a surcharge at the gate and have the food vendors add a surcharge as well. 99.9 percent would pay it and then the EAA could have signage explaing the situation. Defacto people would and point the finger at the FAA as the source of their pain! I would also up the rent on the ( Exempt Armed Services) goverment pavalion as well if they do pay rent that is.

[Floatsflyer]

Why are some of you just focusing on the attendees to pick up the burden of any possible surcharge tab(gate, food, etc.)? Again I'll say why not the exhibitors and sponsors? They can handle it better economically and it would eliminate the need to communicate with signs or other explanations to unsuspecting people at the gate, 75% of whom I'm willing to bet don't have a clue(or don't care) about this latest political tug between FAA & EAA.

[rwanttaja]

Why are some of you just focusing on the attendees to pick up the burden of any possible surcharge tab(gate, food, etc.)? Again I'll say why not the exhibitors and sponsors? They can handle it better economically and it would eliminate the need to communicate with signs or other explanations to unsuspecting people at the gate, 75% of whom I'm willing to bet don't have a clue(or don't care) about this latest political tug between FAA & EAA.

Because EAA has contracts with the exhibitors. They can't just tell them, "We're going to charge you XXX % extra for your display space because of the FAA." And I'm sorry, I don't buy off on the "they can handle it better economically" comment. The General Aviation industry is hurting.

Sponsors...well, it'd be nice if they kicked in the extra money needed. That's a delicate process, though. They might well start feeling....unappreciated...if EAA starts asking them for more money. "I've already given you five million dollars, free and clear...and you want MORE???" Never underestimate the ego of a millionaire....

Another way not yet mentioned it to turn this into a pure user fee: Charge all aircraft that use the services (e.g., land at Oshkosh). Around $50-$100 per aircraft should cover the FAA fees. Or just add a fuel surcharge. Could bump up the charges for vehicle parking, too.

Not advocating any of this, you understand. But the FAA has little reason to back down, and it's probable EAA will have to come up with the money from somewhere. Because the short time period involved, EAA is probably going to have to eat it and come up with methods in future years to collect extra money.

Ron Wanttaja

[Kevin O'Halloran]

we could put up some fancy tents on the flight line and charge supid expensive cost for corps to use them
That would bring in a lot of money
Oh yea---the membership didn't like that idea--so NO ONE should bitch if we get hit for extra fees.
Kevin

[Mayhemxpc]

Just because the government sends you a bill, it doesn't mean you have to pay it. I know that this may come as a shock to some of you, but not everything the US Government does passes legal review. But if you accept what it did to you, it can be used as precedent.

Ron, are you saying that the government can shove a last minute contract down EAA's throat, demanding a non-negotiated payment, but that EAA can't modify its contracts in turn? Gee, I always thought that one of the three universal tenets of "rule of law" was that the laws apply equally to everyone.