Jack actually covered this in the webinar. If you could cobble together enough contract controllers (not likely, no one company has enough staff to pull it off and maintain existing contracts) it will likely cost a lot more. Under the agreement, FAA still pays the controller salaries, EAA pays for back fill overtime and travel related costs. If you use contract controllers, you will have to not only cover the travel costs, but pay the controller salaries.Originally Posted by orvie6
Tim
Exactly. Not to mention do you really think the FAA will issue the waivers needed? I respect contract controllers and companies like Air Boss Inc that everyone keeps mentioning. They do great work, but if you really think would you get the same service with them and not the current cadre of controllers you lack any real knowledge of how ATC at airventure works.
Who do you think the controllers that Air Boss uses are? They are retired FAA Controllers. All of the ones he uses have been Air Venture Controllers. So in reality they would be better as they have MORE experience than the ones he FAA will bring. They are older and wiser. They also are more efficient as they don't have to comply with the UNION BS. The AirBoss CEO said he could do it with 1/2 the personnel the FAA uses and for 1/3 the cost the FAA charged EAA in 2013.
The one outstanding issue is the Liability Insurance. Would the underwriter charge more since the government is not providing the service. How much more and why given the background of the controllers being used.
FAA would still be required to issue the waivers under the contract. The clause for ATC services is the only thing that is being exercised.
I don't know about you, but even if the services in total were a little higher, I would rather pay AirBoss than give one dime to the FAA.
And a huge increase in liability insurance which EAA would end up paying for either directly or indirectly. This is much more complicated than simply finding controllers to replace the FAA controllers.
Just curious, does EAA purchase a liability insurance policy for AV or do they simply self-insure the event? Does anyone know?
"Does anyone know?" I think this is the biggest question in this entire thread!! Do we , as a general membership, really know what all is involved with all aspects of this agreement??? I mean, yea, we are upset because we see this as a start or furtherance of the Government using this as a stepping stone for more restrictions to GA. But, are we aware of all the parameters that are involved here? More than likely, NOT.. Sure, it is upsetting when we 'bow down to the FAA', but with all the other questions this brings up, amount of personnel, insurance, etc., maybe this agreement is not as harmful as we sometimes think. Like we all know, Airventure is one of the largest and longest aviation related events in the world. Perhaps my outlook on this is different because I am in my late 60's and no longer fly as much as I would like, but still think that GA will survive. A lot of our military and commercial airline pilots own GA aircraft. Again, just my opinion.
Wayne
Dave,
I was not going to touch the additional complexities. I figured just covering what Jack stated as an initial high barrier to even begin discussions is a good starting point.
Ylinen,
EAA is already in discussions with AirBoss. This was covered in the webinar, further Jack stated AirBoss cannot provide the staff to do everything the FAA does. They will continue discussions with AirBoss and others, but so far no luck. Second, about half (if I recall correctly) of the fee paid last year will be credited to the EAA agreement.
Wayne,
I think you are correct, I am twenty years behind you but somehow us stubborn pilots will continue to find a way to fly. The problem I see is a lack of interest and high barriers to entry.
Tim
I unfortunately know way too much about govt contracting having been on both sides of that table since 88. If FAA had a ten most wanted list, I would have made that in 89, but I digress.
IMO, the agreement seems to be a pretty good one but no matter how well crafted a document, what makes it work is good faith and trust. It appears to me that EAA struck a pretty good bargain with the FAA by avoiding direct labor costs and only having to do backfill overtime. The transportation, per diem and misc are relatively small charges, and would have to be paid to both FAA or a private contractor.
Since we now have to pay twice for ATC, it appears to me that paying FAA is likely the best value. They may not be cheapest but they will have an incentive to say yes to waivers etc if we are employing them. If we become penny wise and pound foolish we might get a lower cost contractor but then FAA would have an incentive to nit pick us.
EAA made a decision. Let's see if we can support that good faith and trust so things work.
Ok, since we as general membership are not aware of all that was involved in this process, I agree with TedK. Lets support this decision and see how things develop in the future. Lord knows how this will end up, but lets support our organization and see what the future does hold.
Wayne
As I look up the PerDiem for Oshkosh it is $83 per day for lodging and $46 per day for meals and incidentals. EAA should not pay more than that even though there is no way to get a room at that rate without doubling up.
I believe it was Jack or maybe Dick that said the overtime labor was a small part of the bill.
We should also deduct the amount of fuel tax that we all pay getting to/from AV and all the gas bought on the field. Should not have to pay twice for the same service.
Last edited by Ylinen; 03-26-2014 at 12:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
