FAA & Congress Members Respond to $500,000 "Ransom" for AirVenture

[MEdwards]

Did House of Representatives members ever send a letter to the FAA like the Senate did?

Here today is the answer to my own question:

http://eaa.org/news/2013/2013-07-25_...e-ATC-fees.asp

Only 30 signatures from the House. Pretty pitiful, won't get any help there. I'm not surprised to see that my own "representative" dd not sign it.

The FAA's response to the Senators' letter was pretty pitiful too. No justification (they obviously think no justification is required), they just said "we did it."

[MEdwards]

Got a nice form letter from the junior senator from New Mexico, Tom Udall, saying he's fully behind us in opposing these new user fees. Granted he's probably more concerned about the Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta, which he says is in the same boat as the rest of the events, but his heart and his words are in the right place.

Still nothing, as expected, from my Tea Party congressman. There is interest from some in that group though, as evidenced by the interview with Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma I heard over the much improved sound system as I prepared to depart from Oshkosh on Saturday.

[Mike M]

So, we gonna go to a non-towered airport next year? Avoid the fees by avoiding the feds? Flash mob, anyone?

[MEdwards]

Well, shoot. Politics as usual. The same day I get the "nice form letter" from Senator Udall, I get an email from AOPA announcing a $500-$2500 per person reception for Senator Udall sponsored by AOPA and several other aviation organizations, with checks to be sent to Udall's campaign committee.

Is the reception thanks for the "nice form letter," or was the letter just eyewash getting the Senator access to a bunch of wealthy contributors? Politics is politics, I suppose. I'm disappointed.

[RickFE]

"Also, everyone who voted for smaller government take a long look in the mirror. You wanted it, this is what it looks like. " (OBMAHA)

I try to not get too political in the EAA forums. However I can't let the above statement just slide. First off the general public did not get to vote on smaller government. We have elected representatives and the only thing that has happened is a vote to not continue bloating the government which has an appetite for our money that will never be satiated.

To illustrate my point I offer this,
"In fact, the FAA’s post-sequester funding will be even more than what it asked for in President Obama’s fiscal-year 2013 budget resolution. Domestic air travel has declined 27 percent since 2000, but the FAA’s operations budget has since grown by nearly $3 billion, or 30 percent."
from an article (Extravagance at the FAA) by Andrew Stiles <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346688/extravagance-faa>

So unless the above is just a bald face lie published by the National Review, I am to understand that the FAA has received more money in it's budget than it even asked for, yet somehow, this year, Airventure, an event that has come along every year since the 1950's has somehow managed to crimp the budget of the FAA this particular year.

I would say to OBMAHA that those who are in favor of bloated government, continuously wasting our money, are in fact the people that ought to be taking a good hard look in the mirror.

[I_FLY_LOW]

~snip~ i would say to obmaha that those who are in favor of bloated government, continuously wasting our money, are in fact the people that ought to be taking a good hard look in the mirror.

amen!
[/cose thread]

[rwanttaja]

So, we gonna go to a non-towered airport next year? Avoid the fees by avoiding the feds? Flash mob, anyone?

If you're going to close airspace (e.g., have an airshow), the FAA gets involved and we have to pay the going rate to be their "friends."

If the EAA is willing to run the show without an airshow, they could probably pull it off with an uncontrolled field. However, a lot of the big-buck supporters would probably be unwilling to risk their lives (and their Gulfstreams) in the furball that Oshkosh airspace would become. Without the airshow, attendance would probably suffer as the non-flying citizens don't bother to attend. Without the attendance, many vendors would probably decide to give the show a pass. That might include the food vendors, as well...if they overestimate the crowd and buy too much food, they'll be in bad shape. Many of the vendors run forums on their products, so a lot of the forums probably would disappear. Might not be worth it to break out some of the amenities, like the showers. There'd be no money to pay for warbird gas or VIP perks.

All you'd be left with is a bunch of unwashed Fly Baby, Long-EZ, and RV nuts crouching on the ground, cooking hot dogs and talking about airplanes.

Hmmmm...where do I sign up? :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[flibmeister]

All you'd be left with is a bunch of unwashed Fly Baby, Long-EZ, and RV nuts crouching on the ground, cooking hot dogs and talking about airplanes.

Hmmmm...where do I sign up? :-)

Right here: http://www.copperstate.org

We ditched the air show several years ago, when the restrictions that came with the waiver became too confining. This year, we're ditching the tower, too, rather than pay the ransom.

[MEdwards]

Right here: http://www.copperstate.org

We ditched the air show several years ago, when the restrictions that came with the waiver became too confining. This year, we're ditching the tower, too, rather than pay the ransom.

I'll be there. I've flown in a couple times in the last five years, and I always thought the tower was marginally useful anyway. Best of luck, hope it works out OK.

[dacar92]

My understanding is that federal agencies were directed to make their cuts as noticeable and painful for the general public as possible. That way, people will notice and then hear Obama say that he is doing his best against those mean Republicans. I am not sure where I heard that any longer but its' what I recall.