Frankly, the idea that controllers should be expected to work Oshkosh for free is laughable. That is their work and their livelihood. I'm willing to bet that the volunteers who show up to help park airplanes and drive the shuttles don't spend their working days parking airplanes and driving shuttles. Providing ATC services to those of us who are well enough off to fly airplanes costs money. If it doesn't come from taxes, it has to come from somewhere. Everyone seems to think smaller government is a terrific idea, at least until the stuff THEY like gets cut.
Most of the volunteers at Oshkosh are retired, and all choose to be there, of course.
I don't see any problem having some retired controllers volunteer for a few hours each (for one day or more), or as they choose.
In any case, nobody is expected or forced to volunteer.
Rereading the news clip, I think I misunderstood.
Apparently 64 controllers "volunteer" to work the Oshkosh show. But they always get paid for time and expenses. ( so not really a volunteer, in the usual sense)
Apparently this year, the demand from the FAA is for travel and other expenses, they will still be paid for time.
The whole situation seems trivial and perhaps political. But if a change in compensation is needed, I think the controllers that really like to " volunteer" for Oshkosh, should be able to afford to pay their own travel expenses like everyone else.
Compulsory? Only because FAA says FAA is compulsory. And without paid ticketholders, there would be no show. Both ATC collision-avoidance advisors and spectators have reason to be there, but without the many the few would be superfluous. So yes, we need to be there - or they don't.
Keep perspective - cooperate, have fun.
Last edited by Mike M; 05-27-2013 at 04:56 AM.
OH, please! You all have been going on about who should pay or where the money is going to come from. Does anyone actually believe that this idea originated anywhere but with the "COWH". The AOPA called this for what it is: user fees. For that reason alone, this must be fought back and defeated. This is the proverbial camel's nose. The "COWH" will use any means legal or illegal to ram user fees down our throats.
And yes, Chuck, we need much smaller government even if everybody's ox must be gored. General aviation does not need to be gored with user fees. An increase in the fuel tax, not wanted but much preferable.
For those wondering, "COWH - Communist Occupant of the White House"
So on the busiest travel days of the year, when the FAA has to have more controllers on duty (meaning more on overtime, etc.) do the airlines have to pay for the extra workers to be there? Of course not. It's already paid for with taxes. Just because an airport gets busy shouldn't mean one entity has to foot the extra bill. And during Airventure, the tower is actually open less than a normal day. Sure, more controllers, but less hours. Now, I'm not saying they shouldn't get paid, they should. But all the taxes I and you already pay covers it. If EAA pays it, it sets bad precedence and will allow the FAA to start charging extra whenever they choose to whomever they choose.
Todd Reed
N63TD (reserved)
Nexus Mustang
EAA 1424