Instead of 5% reduction (or whatever) across the board, the government has specifically targeted GA this year.
1) The complete shutdown of T-Birds and Blue Angles has had a dramatic negative effect on all the air shows and GA.
2) The tower closing fiasco was targeted at GA.
3) Now the Tower expense fee at Oshkosh
wonder what is next for GA?
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
We the attendees should ALL pay because it is OUR problem and we ALL should care. This is not the type of problem we can pass the buck onto someone else because this is only the beginning. Adding that extra burden courtesy of the FAA will spur people to take action to protect their own interests.
Last edited by RV8505; 06-02-2013 at 02:03 PM.
In that case, precedent has already been established: Sun-N-Fun paid for ATC services this year. Had our chance, and we blew it.
All me to split this into two parts:
"Ron, are you saying that the government can shove a last minute contract down EAA's throat, demanding a non-negotiated payment"
Certainly. You can send me a contract that demands I be your personal slave for the next five years. I have the option not to sign it, just like EAA has the option of not agreeing to the FAA's terms.
"...but that EAA can't modify its contracts in turn?"
Ah, but now we get to the fundamental issue: Did the US Government have a contract with EAA to provide additional controllers to AirVenture 2013 at no cost?
I'm guessing they didn't. If they did, EAA would have already filed an injunction in Federal court, demanding the US Government honor its commitment. Re-read Dick Knapinski's posting. It sounds to me that EAA just worked with the FAA in the past to ensure the FAA had budget allocated for support of AirVenture. He describes the billing as a change in policy.
Remember, when you deal with the USG, the term "contract" as a very specific meaning, and the establishment of a contract requires compliance with a whole passel of laws and the appointment of a platoon of beancounters to monitor it. A "policy" is not a contract, nor is a "gentleman's agreement," nor an exchange of memos nor a grip-and-grin photo. FAA's last minute decision to bill EAA for services previously rendered for free certainly can be characterized as a blackguardly trick, but there's probably no contract involved.
Ron Wanttaja
I have never seen a specific contract between EAA and exhibitors/sponsors but contracts in general have in the event of clauses for purposes of escalation built in. "The GA Industry is hurting." The whole planet is hurting!!
There is an implied contract between ticket buyer and EAA. EAA sets the amount and people pay it in good faith not ever expecting to have it raised or lowered(like any ticket purchase transaction). It's not an agreement that is subject to unilateral action. Thousands have already bought tickets online or whatever. Are you suggesting 2 tiered pricing (for those that will be purchasing in the future).
User Fees??!! I know you aren't advocating them but I thought you and most people on here were dead set against any form of additional user fees in GA so why even mention them as an option.
I know little of contracts, but from a short bit of online research, escalation clauses seem to be primarily focused on physical materials that vary in cost. Basically, something that you can physically reference for the price going higher. For the EAA/Exhibitor contract, there may be an escalation clause for the utilities cost, there may be one for sales tax. Kinda doubt there's one for "cost of FAA services," and really doubt there's one for "We discovered at the last minute we need more money to pay for something unrelated to supplying you an exhibit space."
That's how we'll do it... we'll tell the FAA to send the bill to the WHOLE PLANET!
Great suggestion! Bump the ticket prices as of, say, 10 June. Those who buy early get a great deal. It'll encourage early ticket sales next year. Volunteerism should surge, too.
Because until you suggested two-tier pricing, the only other suggestions basically involve threatening to hold our breath until the FAA gives in. Maybe the FAA will...for this year...but if not, EAA needs some ideas for ways to get through this. We don't know the status of EAA's coffers; we don't know if there's enough to absorb a $500K-$1M hit for ATC services at the last minute. If there isn't, they're going to need to generate some extra cash really quick. Though we don't know if the FAA is demanding the money in advance...maybe they'll let EAA post-date the check.
Most "user fee" discussions involve something where one gets charged for routine activities. Pay toilets, for instance, or talking to the guy in the tower using the noisy-box. But we're talking about an event where all attendees have to pay anyway. An admission fee IS a user fee; no one who does not use the service (e.g., attendance at the event) has to pay it, and one can avoid paying it by not using the service (e.g., attending the event).
It is also hoped that EAA will not continue to implement extra charges beyond the crisis period; we KNOW that a Government User Fee will go on forever.
Ron Wanttaja
"I know little of contracts..."
I could tell. I am confident that the same condition does not exist with those handling this at EAA HQ.
FAA is already getting extra funds from us for AirVenture, because we buy fuel to get there and back home and pay Federal tax on that fuel.
Oh, you cut me to the quick....
The exhibitor application (which becomes the contract) is attached. No sign of any escalation terms, at least to this poor single-celled engineer's brain.
Where's my acorn?
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited by rwanttaja; 06-02-2013 at 09:06 PM.
Ron Wantaja,
You lastest replies to the last few posts here, including mine, indicate someone getting a lot over the top here to the point where your responses are becoming incoherant and rude. Why don't you just sit back, smoke a few joints, relax and let the EAA staff, who get paid to deal with issues such as this one, do their job. I'm confident they will arrive at a reasonable solution without your many, conflicting suggestions.
If your advice is to let the EAA staff handle the problem...then why did this thread get going at all? This is an important issue that deserves public discussion.
As for trying to get me to cease participation...well, I got sued once, for things I said online, and THAT didn't stop me. In 30 years online, I've signed my real name to every thing I've posted online. I take responsibility for what I say.
If you don't want to participate in the discussion, don't. Otherwise, present evidence if you have it, or reasonably-constructed arguments if you don't. Your point about escalation clauses was a good one, but it was a bit too easy to discount. None of us like what the FAA is doing, but just complaining about them isn't going to do anything.
As for the acorn comment...sigh, it's no fun at ALL if one has to explain. But here's a link. I made the acorn comment in response to being accused of not being a lawyer. But when I think back on it, it wasn't really an insult... :-)
Ron Wanttaja
^^^^^^^^^ My real name. You think it was MY idea?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote