What, then, are we arguing about? Are you saying the FAA has asked EAA to pay for the routine staffing of the Oshkosh tower (e.g., the staffing required 51 weeks out of the year)? That EAA does not want special treatment (e.g, increased controller staffing) during the Fly-In?Originally Posted by FloridaJohn
You seem to be saying that the FAA has demanded money for providing ANY services during the fly-in, which I do not think is the case.
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited by rwanttaja; 05-29-2013 at 05:44 PM.
Actually, I've read that this policy has been in effect for a number of years: For instance, NASCAR and the PGA supposedly pay for the temporary towers set up to support their events. The only difference is that the FAA previously waived the fees for aviation events. With a constrained budget situation, they're no longer willing to.
I tend to agree that EAA should just refuse to pay, plus request the FAA close the tower for the duration of the show. This will probably cut down on the warbirds and the bizjet, but probably won't affect the homebuilts, antiques, and classics who deal with these kinds of conditions all the time.
Ron Wanttaja
Yes, Ron...that is exactly MY position, anyway, and you stated it quite well....Quoting RW.."FAA has asked EAA to pay for the routine staffing of the Oshkosh tower"....the routine staffing for 43 years now give or take; Exactly like they staff up for holidays, and other yearly events without charge to anyone that I am aware of. Guess it all comes down to one's definition of 'routine', and we may all just have to arm wrestle for it. :-)
I would be cautious about EAA asking that the tower be closed during the fly-in. There might be some liability in that. I strongly support telling them where they can put their ......um, let me re-phrase that....that we respectfully refuse to pay unauthorized user fees.
Jim
Last edited by Jim Rosenow; 05-29-2013 at 05:51 PM. Reason: added 2nd para
I hope you mean that as a threat strategy by EAA to FAA to get them to back down. If not, you've just provided the classic definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Jim, please don't edit my statements in order to put words in my mouth. What I said was, "Are you saying the FAA has asked EAA to pay for the routine staffing of the Oshkosh tower ...?" I did not claim that the FAA *was* asking EAA to pay for the routine staffing, as you edited my statement to say.
Your answer to my question is apparently "yes." And I disagree.
Is the Fisk Approach Control staffed year-round? Here's a picture of it from a previous AirVenture:
Count the pink shirts. That's five people sitting in a trailer controlling inbound traffic. I bet they're not sitting there right now. So that's at least five...probably actually ten or more... folks that are added for the show.
Here's a shot of the tower. Count the pink shirts:
Do you seriously think tomorrow's afternoon shift in Oshkosh tower has that many people?
According to Wikipedia, in 2007, the FAA brought in 75 additional people to work traffic control at AirVenture.
According to US Department of Labor statistics, median pay for an Air Traffic Controller is $51/hour. The controllers at AV are the top, and probably make more than that. But assume those 75 controllers make the median, and work 40 hours. That's $153,000, just in straight salary. Add a goodly amount to cover the pension contributions and health care plans, and also the overtime being worked by the controllers when those 75 people disappear from their home facilities. Add travel, per diem, rental cars for transportation. (EAA's web page doesn't mention housing; EAA has nearby hotels booked, and I bet they give rooms to the FAA guys).
So let's stop the fiction that this is routine year-round staffing, hmmm?
The issue is that the FAA has previously absorbed the costs for its support of AirVenture and now are unwilling to do so. EAA is under the lion's paw, here... without the controllers, they won't dare put on a show. The FAA doesn't HAVE to deal (if the show gets cancelled, they'll actually SAVE money), and EAA can't afford to cancel. So they're going to (eventually) pay.
How much? I suspect there'll be more than coin o' the realm involved. EAA provides a lot of support for the FAA and there might be some quid pro quo involved (hosting retreats for FAA conferences, providing warbird training for FAA check ride pilots, etc.). There will probably be a dollar amount announced, but the extra deals probably won't be made public.
If you don't like this...and none of us do, even myself... don't bad-mouth the EAA staffers and brass. I'm sure they're trying like crazy. Don't bother complaining about the FAA. They're caught in a squeeze, too. Their budgets are tight, and they have to do more with less.
Wanna do something? Call your Congresscritter. The FAA is forced to follow its budget, but Congress ultimately controls it. FAA won't budge about making EAA pay because they're afraid that some member of Congress will accuse them of wasteful favoritism to a private Wisconsin company. But get some of those members of Congress to encourage FAA support of AirVenture, and the FAA won't be as afraid of risking censure by one or two isolated representatives or senators.
So there's your choice, guys. Continue to whine, moan, and slam the guys trying to make AirVenture go...or actually do something.
Ron Wanttaja
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on my earlier post, Ron. The purpose was to say that MY position is that FAA is asking EAA to pay for 'routine' staffing, and that those specific words expressed MY position well.
I define routine as something that happens with regularity, in a cycle, and is expected. The cycle could be hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, Schwinn*, yearly, etc. The fly-in currently meets my criteria. Having been there at other times, I fully concur that the operational levels at KOSH are different the rest of the year than during the fly-in. (I've tried to get into this "Airventure" phraseology, but probably never will.)
My argument is only with the administrator within the FAA who made the decision to charge for what are by my definition (I understand not yours, Ron) routine services, and whoever up the chain should have nixed it. I specifically support EAA staff and implementing FAA staff who have no choice in the matter.
Side question...Had there previously been a FAA-budgeted amount (line item) for this which was removed?...What was the methodology that brought the change about? Was it an announced policy change....Just somebody said...hey, how about if we.... ?? Hal?...other EAA staff?...anyone know?
Up the chain is key. I urge everyone to, and will today myself, contact my Congresscritters (cute, Ron! :-). Are we assuming that EAA is using their political clout in the same way?
Jim
* Just making sure you were really paying attention, all :-)
Let me try to clarify my points one more time:
- The fly-in is a routine event, happening in regular intervals and at a consistent time of the year. The FAA knew about it well in advance and appears to have planned for the event (i.e. NOTAM). They have been doing this for decades and it is clear this event is not a surprise to anyone.
- The FAA's mandate is Air Safety. With that many planes converging on one location at the same time, there is a concern for air safety. The FAA should do what is required to fulfill their mandate.
- The FAA is now asking for money for doing something they have done for decades without complaint.
- The FAA has made no attempt to control their costs. They have not altered their plans at all, but now expect EAA to foot the bill. I believe that if money is an issue, then they should first attempt to lower their expenses before seeking additional income.
- It is unclear what would happen if EAA did not pay the FAA. Would they refuse services? If they did, then that would seem to run counter to their mandate, Air Safety.
- There are other "events" that happen throughout the year that increase air traffic, like holiday traffic, but the FAA has not charged others for those increased services. It seems that they are unfairly singling out the EAA.
- There appears to be no precedent for these charges. How is the price determined? What method was used? What is the procedure for challenging the amount? How is the FAA held accountable by the "customer"?
Thanks, Jim, glad to know it wasn't deliberate. I don't have many buttons, but THAT was one of them. :-)
Gotcha, and understand your use of the term "routine", now. Your point about FAA budgets was a shrewd one, and I suggest "budgeted" would be a better term than "routine."
This HAD to have been accommodated within the FAA budget before. I did a cursory look through the FAA's 2010 budget (gad, the things I do for you folks). Searched for "EAA", "Oshkosh", "Airventure," and even "Air Show" and "Special event", and didn't come up with any hits. So it's buried deeply; not surprising when it's probably $500K out of a $9+ billion budget. As such, it's probably "in the noise" as far as overall policy is concerned. It's a Very Big Deal to us, but to the beancounters at the FAA, it's just pocket change.
Ron Wanttaja
I guess we just have to accept the aviation fuel tax is missued like the automotive gas tax. Spent on projects totally unrelated for which the tax was designed. Now we have to make up for the funds that were raided.
+1 on all points but the 'other events', John. I believe someone here proferred knowledge that non-aviation events pay for temp towers, etc. If true, that makes some sense on one level, as FAA should not be supporting NASCAR or whomever, IMO. On another level, we're back to the aviation safety argument.
Have you discussed with your Congresscritters, yet?
Jim
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote