Printable View
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?Quote:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Hongisto
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Rosenow
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:
Attachment 2993
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:
Attachment 2994
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. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Rosenow
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Rosenow
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FloridaJohn
Have you discussed with your Congresscritters, yet?
Jim
It amazes me that any international diplomacy ever gets done. We are two at least semi-intelligent folks, allegedly trying to speak the same language, and havin' a doozie of a time! :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Thanks for taking a look at the FAA budget....a tall, cool drink can help you get over that experience. I think I'll pass...on the budget experience at least.
JR calling EAA staff....JR calling EAA staff.... At what point is this process? Have funds actually been requested in writing by the FAA? Has there been a response from EAA? I'm sure you're in touch with SnF...did they pony up the funds? Inquiring minds.....
Jim
Hang tight, Jim - I asked Dick Knapinski earlier today if he'd chime in so you could get a response straight from the horse's mouth, and he promised me he would. Dick, along with a number of the rest of us, were out of the office and a bit "off the grid" for a few hours at a "General Aviation Rally" at that Appleton airport today, so I'm sure he'll jump on once he's had a little time to get caught up.
Thanks, Hal! I will cut and paste a couple of things I was curious about below, as possible points to be addressed....Others please feel free to Reply with Quote for yours....Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Bryan
---------------
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".... ??
At what point is this process? Have funds actually been requested in writing by the FAA? Has there been a response from EAA? I'm sure you're in touch with SnF...did they pony up the funds?
---------
Thanks, again, Hal!
Jim
In my post, I tried to make it clear that other "events" could be something as simple as increased traffic over a holiday weekend (i.e. Thanksgiving). It does not necessarily mean a "NASCAR" event, or other things like that. Air traffic is not at a constant rate throughout the year, so staffing changes (I presume) are made to adjust to the natural ebb and flow of the yearly air traffic cycle. The EAA fly-in at KOSH also fits into that ebb and flow and should be accounted for, if nothing else, for the sake of air safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Rosenow
Unless, of course, the FAA now thinks that air safety is only available to those who pay extra for it.
Hi, all:
As Hal said, just catching up here. Part of the day was working with this topic. I'll try to answer best as I can, although some of those are questions for the FAA where we might not have complete knowledge.
The AirVenture air traffic services have always been a budgeted item. It was budgeted for this year, too. A couple of weeks ago, FAA admitted they were going to bill EAA for expenses, even though Congressional action fully funded the air traffic control system. The reason we're receiving is because of sequestration, there are budget cuts FAA must make. That doesn't pass the smell test, really, for a variety of reasons, including the FAA's own statements. And the sequestration budget is still much larger than the FAA budget of just a couple of years ago.
We don't know the methodology they used to determine the costs. Those were extremely broad (just three line items) in the initial contract that we received. We're pressing for more information and clarification, among other things, since we don't know exactly which incidental costs are included. There are also sequestration politics involved, to be sure.
It was NOT an annnouced policy change. EAA had heard some rumblings about some numbers being gathered. It took a trip to DC to ask the FAA's top officals directly whether this was taking place before we got the honest answer. That was about two weeks ago.
There are a lot of things taking place in various directions right now. We've talked to people in Congress. All options are still open. There could soon be a role for EAA members to play in this and we'll be sure to get everybody involved when that point comes up.
Sun n Fun did pay the FAA, to our knowledge. Given the comparative size of the events, you can be sure our bill is bigger. And statements by FAA top officials to Congress made it sounds as if it would be even bigger in the future.
We've already paid for FAA air traffic services with our fuel taxes. The agency's mandate is safety, so therefore they should be where the airplanes are. That safety should not be for sale. This is also bigger than AirVenture; we're worried about where this new philosophy ends. We're in this for everybody, not just Oshkosh. It many ways, it's a user fee without Congressional mandate.
Hope that helps a little!
My feelings exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Knapinski
Thanks for the update, Dick. Keep fighting the good fight!
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by FloridaJohn
The agency's mandate is safety. Isn't it also promoting aviation? I thought that was the conflict the FAA was always caught in the middle of.
Safety plus promoting aviation equals FAA controller presence at Airventure.
Assuming that EAA has retained outside legal Counsel which is knowledgeable of the FAA’s rule making and budgeting process, then EAA ought to send notice, through its Counsel, that all further correspondence regarding ATC services at AirVenture should be reduced to writing and directed to its legal representative. This issue has apparently progressed well beyond an agreeable outcome and is now a legal matter and should be dealt with accordingly. Additional outside pressure can be brought to bear upon the FAA through EAA’s political contacts and lobbyists.
While it may be inevitable, the thought of this winding up in, and working it's way through, the courts is frightening. Not only could it take forever, but the final outcome could be disastrous. (i.e. court mandated - or at least approved - user fees)
Should make for an interesting "Meet the Administrator" session this year...If he has the integrity to show up after this.
Actually, Congress removed the "promoting aviation" part of the FAA mission about 15-20 years ago. FAA's mission statement is now:
"Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world." And the "Our Vision" statement at www.faa.gov is:
"We strive to reach the next level of safety, efficiency, environmental responsibility and global leadership. We are accountable to the American public and our stakeholders."
Thanks for providing that info, Dick. The whole thing is, in my opinion, wrong on so many levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Knapinski
First, our elected officials, who we pay well to represent us, failed us miserably by not passing a budget. Those people supposedly work for US. (Folks, please allow me that comment without the thread going all politics...please!!)
Second, the 'philosophy' of FAA concerning budget cut priorities seems to be somewhat askew....especially assuming that the normal FAA staff of a dozen or more will still be doing their whiz-bang multi-media presentations in the building dedicated to them at the fly-in. Perhaps if they're requiring pay for FAA services, we could respectfully decline that particular one, and save them a few bucks.
Third, the proferred contract is nothing less than legalized extortion (again, this is my opinion) given the timing and presentation. The ransom note...I mean contract, based on your description, is vague (perhaps on purpose) to the point of ludicrousness.
Fourth, as you noted, we have already paid for these services once with fuel taxes. If I pay someone to do something for me, then they spend the money for something else and can't buy what's needed to finish the project, that should be their own problem, not mine as a consumer.
This is as good a place as any to put a stop to it. Together we have more power than I do as an individual when presented with a bill after using flight following. I could see that as a natural out-growth of what is occuring here.
How about we just use volunteer Controllers and simply staff the Fisk, OSH tower and elsewhere as required with volunteer controllers. There is nothing inherently governmental in being a controller...there are plenty of Contract Controllers out there. If a Fed Controller wanted to do it then they would likely have to take leave.
Lets not beg the FAA to do their job, lets do it ourselves!
As I offered before it sounds good but there is the format for controllers at AV
http://www.airventure.org/atc/volunteers.html
Competitive selection process [edit]
The FAA has staffed a tower at the EAA convention since the 1960s. FAA air traffic staffers (including controllers, supervisors, and managers) compete from throughout the FAA's new 17-state Central Terminal Service Area to work this event. In 2007, 145 air traffic professionals representing 45 facilities volunteered to staff the facilities at Oshkosh (OSH), Fond du Lac (FLD), and Fisk. Sixty-four controllers and 11 supervisors were ultimately selected. Controllers normally can only volunteer for a maximum of seven years at the EAA convention, to allow others a chance to work this temporary duty assignment. However, recent staffing shortages at some facilities have caused the FAA to use a few veteran controllers beyond the seven-year limit.
see this video - http://www.postcrescent.com/VideoNet...ers-talk-it-up
I am not privy to what is actually going on in "negotiations" but I trust that Dick and the other relevant EAA management have engaged experts in federal contracting to help them. My experience is in Defense contingency contracting (that means wartime support), and there are elements which probably don't apply to this. Nonetheless, there are elements of what I am hearing about that seem very contrary to the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Just a small example that may or may not apply. When we contract for certain support or services in a combat zone, there is the issue of life support for the contractors. This includes but is not limited to lodging, food, and medical care. These services are normally provided on a cost reimbursable basis. Figuring out what these costs are is enough of a challenge, as is how to collect them. (Direct versus indirect costs, separating the cost of support provided to a contractor from the overhead of providing that same support to a soldier right next to him is one example.) The contractors have the right to negotiate, which includes the opportunity to obtain services from other sources. E.g., they might provide their own dining facilities, combine together with other contractors to staff their own man-camps, and even medical care might be provided by subcontracting with companies that specialize in this. Then the company gets to look at what the government is offering and narrow the scope to what is necessary and sufficient. No "gold plating." Then the contractor decides whether to accept the government offer of reimbursed support or obtain it through other means.
So how does this relate to AirVenture? As has been pointed out above, there really is room for negotiation (required under the Federal Acquisition Regs). 51 weeks a year, KOSH operates as a contractor operated tower. The EAA should have the opportunity to use contractors this week, too. It can probably be demonstrated that volunteers can provide an equivalent level of safety in what SOME of what the FAA does (spotters at Fisk and beyond). KOSH continues to service normal air operations NOT directly related to AirVenture. These operations have to be separated out from what the FAA would like to charge. Support provided by the FAA has to be fair and reasonable. Paying travel for someone to come from San Diego when someone is available from Chicago is not fair and reasonable. Lodging must be based on normal rates in the region according to the GSA schedule, not hopped up prices at 4 star hotels. Similarly, as required, compensation should not be based on 30 year ATC veterans, unless that level of experience is what EAA wants (and wants to pay for.) As I posted earlier, if the FAA wants to impose this for 2014, the time to start negotiating is now. It is WAY too late for 2013.
As EAA negotiates, however, remember that the pressure to do this may NOT be coming from within the FAA. Although insisting on proper federal contract negotiation is critical, the solution may lie in applying appropriate pressure at appropriate places outside of the FAA.
Apologies for taking so much space. Federal contracting is complicated.
Mayhem is spot on about Federal contracting (I too am a defense contractor and know all too well that it can be a bottomless quagmire when trying to do something different). For that reason, I think EAA should avoid contracting with the Feds. We should see what we can staff with Volunteers, perhaps Fisk and not the Tower, and make a clean line between EAA and the FAA. There is no reason that Fed Controllers can not volunteer their time to EAA (but not FAA). But I believe that EAA directly paying FAA is a bad precedent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayhemxpc
The first question that has to be answered before any 'negotiations' start is, "Is air safety for sale?"
What happens if an agreeable contract cannot be reached? Is the FAA going to wash their hands of it and let the ships fall where they may? Is the EAA now responsible for the airspace around KOSH? How far out? 5 nm? 10 nm? 100 nm? There are a lot a philosophical and moral questions that need to be answered before any money changes hands, because this could set a negative precendent that will affect us all, even if we don't fly in to Oshkosh.
To FloridaJohn: Exactly!!!!! Not one dime to the FAA, but if the FAA needs augmentation, EAA augments with volunteers. I would even go so far as to compensate volunteer controllers from EAA or EAA associated funds, but not one dime to the US Treasury.
Don't forget the liability issue. If EAA assumes responsibility for air traffic control services, it's also legally going to take responsibility for the safety of the aircraft using them. EAA's current insurance probably doesn't cover that; it's possible that a rider to do so might cost more than the FAA wants to charge for the services....Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Klapka
Ron Wanttaja
Well, yes it is. It always HAS been.Quote:
Originally Posted by FloridaJohn
There's an implied phrase any time you talk about the FAA's mission or its responsibility for safety. "[The FAA's] continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world" must be followed by the phrase "...to the limit of the funds allocated by Congress."
It's funny how much folks forget this. Mode C transponders? 406 MHz ELTs? ADS-B systems? If the FAA's overwhelming responsibility is safety, shouldn't they be GIVING this stuff to us?
But no: The FAA has to live on a budget. And a budget means you make hard choices, EVEN with safety.
I haven't heard the actual dollar amount the FAA is demanding, but for the sake of argument, say it's one million dollars.
In other words, EAA is asking the FAA for one million dollars' worth of services to help protect about 50,000 aircraft pilots and passengers per year. Seems a reasonable expense.
But then someone from, say, Atlanta-Hartsfield airport stands up and says: "For one million dollars, we can upgrade **** and protect 92 MILLION passengers per year."
So, where does the hard-headed "Safety is paramount (to the limit of the funds allocated by Congress)" FAA budgeteer put that one million dollars?
Sure, we'd prefer they cover this by transferring money from the account that covers carpet-cleaning of Huerta's office. But remember, this was all triggered by sequestration. I posted a link to the FAA's budget summary a couple of days back; about 900 pages just for a summary that didn't even go low enough to show the Oshkosh support. It probably takes months to prepare; no way they could rework the entire thing once the sequester went into effect (and there was no budget to pay for "what if" work BEFORE the sequester).
The only thing they could possibly do, in the short time they had, is to cut back all items by about the same percent. If the EAA support was listed under "safety", there might be some hope to protect it...but it was probably listed under "Operations," and that's one of the things that's getting pared back. Some FAA accountant saw this as a low-hanging fruit, especially since it was primarily benefiting a private corporation, and other private groups were already paying for such services. With time to work with the next year's budget, they might be able to re-allocate funds to cover Oshkosh. Doesn't help this year, though.
It's not the fault of EAA, it's not the fault of the FAA, its the fault of those spineless representatives and senators (from BOTH sides of the aisle) who refused to do their jobs. Too many of them saw political suicide in voting to reduce things like the defense budget, so they threw it up to a process where they could deny responsibility ("Hey, it was automatic"). Hand grenades instead of scalpels.
The only thing these weasels fear is losing their jobs at the next election. That's one of the reason all of us should be hammering our political representatives over the EAA issue; let them know we aren't happy with they're doing, and encourage them push the FAA to fix this important safety gap.
Ron Wanttaja
The EAA shouldn't eat the cost of Air Traffic Control . They should institute a surcharge and pass the cost on at the gate, camping, soft drinks and water. Along with the price increases signage to explain why the prices are going up and who to contact at the FAA. Nothing like a million mad people to get your attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV8505
Too late to apply add-ons for gate admissions. The exhibitors are more likely better equipped to manage a surcharge. Not at all in favour of increases tacked on to food and beverages.
Or even 200,000 mad people. But many, like me would probably just find something else to do during the last week of July every summer.Quote:
Originally Posted by RV8505
But it might be the best way to recoup a sudden last-minute expense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
Actual numbers are hard to come by, here. AFAIK, the actual AMOUNT the FAA is asking for hasn't been released. Let's assume the FAA has requested a nice round $1,000,000. IIRC, Sun-N-Fun had to pay something like $285,000.
(Side note: Little or no furor was raised over SnF having to pay for the same services Oshkosh is being billed for. No doubt this encouraged the FAA to dun AirVenture.)
Sun-N-Fun got a local tourist group to pay some of it, but Florida is SO tourism-business intensive, I suspect the same level of support won't be available.
So, how many people come to AirVenture? The data isn't public. EAA announced an attendance of 500,000 last year, but the way *I* understand it, it doesn't mean a half-million people came to the show. It's basically people-days; basically it's saying they averaged ~72,000 guests per day over the seven days of the show.
But what it does mean that, if they can get each guest to pony up roughly an additional $2 per day, they've got the FAA services covered. That's not really that bad. If they added a surcharge to admission, the rise in a weekly admission would be just $14. They could add a 25-cent surcharge to each meal item and probably make it.
If the amount the FAA's trying to bill for is less than a million (I'm guessing it's actually around $600,000), it's just that much less they have to pass on to attendees.
Ron Wanttaja
It is not to late to add a surcharge at the gate and have the food vendors add a surcharge as well. 99.9 percent would pay it and then the EAA could have signage explaing the situation. Defacto people would and point the finger at the FAA as the source of their pain! I would also up the rent on the ( Exempt Armed Services) goverment pavalion as well if they do pay rent that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Why are some of you just focusing on the attendees to pick up the burden of any possible surcharge tab(gate, food, etc.)? Again I'll say why not the exhibitors and sponsors? They can handle it better economically and it would eliminate the need to communicate with signs or other explanations to unsuspecting people at the gate, 75% of whom I'm willing to bet don't have a clue(or don't care) about this latest political tug between FAA & EAA.
Because EAA has contracts with the exhibitors. They can't just tell them, "We're going to charge you XXX % extra for your display space because of the FAA." And I'm sorry, I don't buy off on the "they can handle it better economically" comment. The General Aviation industry is hurting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Floatsflyer
Sponsors...well, it'd be nice if they kicked in the extra money needed. That's a delicate process, though. They might well start feeling....unappreciated...if EAA starts asking them for more money. "I've already given you five million dollars, free and clear...and you want MORE???" Never underestimate the ego of a millionaire....
Another way not yet mentioned it to turn this into a pure user fee: Charge all aircraft that use the services (e.g., land at Oshkosh). Around $50-$100 per aircraft should cover the FAA fees. Or just add a fuel surcharge. Could bump up the charges for vehicle parking, too.
Not advocating any of this, you understand. But the FAA has little reason to back down, and it's probable EAA will have to come up with the money from somewhere. Because the short time period involved, EAA is probably going to have to eat it and come up with methods in future years to collect extra money.
Ron Wanttaja
we could put up some fancy tents on the flight line and charge supid expensive cost for corps to use them
That would bring in a lot of money
Oh yea---the membership didn't like that idea--so NO ONE should bitch if we get hit for extra fees.
Kevin
Just because the government sends you a bill, it doesn't mean you have to pay it. I know that this may come as a shock to some of you, but not everything the US Government does passes legal review. But if you accept what it did to you, it can be used as precedent.
Ron, are you saying that the government can shove a last minute contract down EAA's throat, demanding a non-negotiated payment, but that EAA can't modify its contracts in turn? Gee, I always thought that one of the three universal tenets of "rule of law" was that the laws apply equally to everyone.