Thanks, Hal...not sure how I missed that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Bryan
Printable View
Thanks, Hal...not sure how I missed that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Bryan
Some new information about the FAA's plans can be found here:
As Backlash Grows, FAA Is Planning 'Extensive' Special Event User Fees
From the article:
Apparently; the FAA is developing a "menu" for basic service fees that starts with events as simple as a grassroots airshow waiver (ostensibly to start at/or around $5000) and to increase as the FAA's role becomes more complex or develops outside "normal operations." Fall events such as the Reno Air Races (which don't require much in the way of FAA 'special' services and may, therefore, escape much of the extra costs), HAI and NBAA conventions are on the bubble... with the NBAA show seen as being particularly 'lucrative' in terms of the fees that FAA expects to levy against the event and the organization.
But... it doesn't stop there.
The FAA has a growing list of public events that require "extra surveillance and operation support" such as the Super Bowl (and smaller such bowl events), major car racing events such as the Indy 500, major golf events such as various PGA contests, horse-racing, the World Series, and more. ANN has been told that the FAA believes that it could eventually recoup between 20 and 30 million dollars with an aggressive push to make special operations "pay their share" (yes, that was actually said--ANN) of the special operations costs that the FAA (and the FAA alone) seems to think are now outside of their immediate responsibility to provide.
Camel's nose, indeed!
That article says the FAA's COO is J David Grizzle. A quick check of the airmen registry shows only one J. David Grizzle. A student pilot from 2000. So are we to understand that the Chief Operating Official of the FAA isn't even a pilot? Now it all makes sense!! The ineptitude of our government seems to be amazing me more and more every day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Arnold
100% correct. This is what "smaller government" looks like. Many of you asked for it, and you (and sadly, the rest of us) are getting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Exactly so.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." - HL Mencken
You asked for spending cuts and shrinking the government, and you're getting 'em good and hard. This is what it looks like. Did you think that just because you're in favor of closing some schools and cutting teacher salaries and cutting unemployment benefits that eventually YOU wouldn't be affected? Just how special of a snowflake do you think you are?
THAT is an excellent point, and it's actually one of the major, general points to the sequester (I think). If everyone feels some pain, then in theory, we'll all be complaining to our representatives to actually formulate a real budget. Or something like that. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RV8505
Or the FAA could actually use some common sense in determining what to cut. So far, their solutions have been to haphazardly cut contract control towers and charge fly-ins for services that have already been paid for.
I am all for the FAA cutting their budget, but holding EAA hostage at the last minute is not one of them. My suggestion would be that they look at all control towers (both contract and FAA), and determine which ones are no longer necessary. See if some current FAA towers could be converted to cheaper contract towers. Stop funding programs that no longer serve any purpose or are ineffective. See if office staff can be reduced.
If they did those few simple things, I believe they would find a lot more money than they can get out of EAA.
Plus, aviation fuel taxes, which we all pay, specifically fund ATC services, so we have already paid in advance and this money does not come out of the general tax fund.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Boatright
100 percent wrong...
1. We already paid for the ATC services with our fuel taxes. Why should EAA pay again for what we already paid for.
2. Generally, when someone sends you a Bill it is because you ordered something. EAA did not request the FAA send an Army of 100 controllers.
3. The Sequester resulted in a 2.7 percent cut to a 5 percent budget increase for the FAA. The FAA budget this year is larger than last. So, to be fair, send 2.7 less controllers, I bet we can all live with that.
4. Smaller government does not equal extorting groups for money that the FAA feels need service. Smaller government means that the FAA provides what it required to safely accomplish its Congressionally mandated safety mission. If WE don;t feel there is enough people, then we pay for the overage. What happened here is that FAA said - we think you need this, now you pay it all.
5. Last point though, Jeff is right about one thing. I think in smaller government terms we are better off without them. So, lets just tell them thanks but no thanks.
I believe the FAA (and perhaps much of government ) is controlled by union leaders. Unions exist to serve their members, not the public.
The FAA obviously has no interest in cutting anything. It is this never ending quest for perks that unions demand.
Unions thrived in private industry until the companies went broke. And now they focus on secure government jobs for their members. But governments simply take longer to go broke.
Government unions were illegal at one time, I think.
My brother was a member of a state government union. He told me the perks were nice, but in his opinion, governments should not be unionized. Nobody is looking out for the taxpayer, the negotiations are completely one sided, so we will continue to see these creative coercive tactics, I am afraid.
Nope, I am 100% correct. What we (and many other groups and individuals) are experiencing is EXACTLY what happens with mandated across-the-board cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott f
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be working under the assumption that downsizing the government and associated cuts will be done to suit you or me, that it will be done in a way that strikes you and me as being fair and smart. If so, I think you are 100% wrong. Budget cuts like these are messy and the pain is spread around apparently randomly, though it's not random. There is a trend for the politically weak to get nailed first (which indeed has been happening with Medicare and with unemployment insurance). Small but identifiable items, like what FAA budgets for OSH, are easy targets. Here the affected individuals are from generally politically strong groups, but the number of affected individuals is tiny. Easy target. Probably took a nanosecond for an FAA budget wiz to check that box.
Right? Wrong? Fair? Unfair? Efficient? Sloppy? None of those entered into the decision once the sequester started. Cuts are here, low hanging fruit gets picked first.
well I guess we get there from different directions Jeff, but I bet we agree on one thing. It is best not to act like a low hanging fruit.
Jeff, At least 28 Senators from both parties disagree with you about their intent for the FAA budget and the provision they made for fully funded ATC operations.
In DoD, we are on a 20% pay cut for the rest of the year. Many of the politically appointed leadership (people with "secretary" in their titles), who are otherwise exempt from the furlough, are voluntarily returning 20% of their pay to the Treasury for the same time that the furlough lasts. Although we may not like it, no one that I know is complaining about the furlough. We know that something is necessary. We are trying to be smart about what to cut, where, and when. Is it too much to ask the FAA to do the same?
I do not at all like the Ottoman notion of bureaucrats demanding baksheesh for services, especially when those services are fully funded.
Well, as far as cutting items in the budget to save money, we all know how much a part of the overall budget that $500,000 that FAA wants from EAA is.
There are some non believers that might suggest not having the IRS spend all that money on their conventions or the TSA not spend $50 million on new uniforms. Perhaps the Air Force Academy could even do without repaving their roads every year or our airport with the pavement on the ramp that really did not need redoing or the Eagle and Jeffco, could get by with the control towers they already had instead of $millions for new ones. But any sort of logic or thrift or common sense is not the way things are done in our gov.
If there is a big plate of gravy everyone wants a turn at the platter.
And most of all, aren't we lucky that our govt seems to always be able to find a war of two to spend a few trillion $$$$$$$ on.
There are some wimps that think we ought to be spending most of our money on things that actually help people, but every politician knows there really isn't much markup and profit in peace time.
If EAA pays the half million $$, just think of it as our little one percent of the price of the next F35 or whatever the new must have techno hardware is.
This pretty much sums up where all the money has gone
exactamundo! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by scott f
I'll post this link in each of these threads, just to make sure that you all see it:
http://www.eaa.org/news/2013/2013-06...TC-demands.asp
Hal, with all due respect to you and all of your co workers including Mr Pelton, I have to say a very bad decision has been made. The door to user fees of all kinds has just been opened wide and invites the demise of avaition as we know it. Mr Pelton should have told the FAA in the nicest way possible to shove it. Blackmail and extortion is never acceptable. Give in to it once and you had better be willing to live with it forever. My apreciation to all of you for your hard work and that includes Mr Pelton, but I cannot agree with this decision.
Through out the history of EAA AirVenture convention,
did EAA ever have to cover FAA expenses related to air traffic control services?
I believe the FAA was looking for a easy target to extract money from.
With Jack Pelton, holding the new chairman of the board position and acting
as president and CEO of EAA while a replacement is found since October 2012.
FAA may have thought they could catch EAA in flux. Maybe they did.
Especially springing these last minute expenses on EAA right before their Annual convention.
Sounds like dirty pool to me.
Maybe the best thing to do is fight and pay, so you can live to fight another day.
The United States Post Office has been running in the red for years why can't the FAA?
Jack, the BOD and the entire EAA organizational staff have just experienced the classic definition of "between a rock and a hard place." How does one choose amongst a list of nothing but catastrophic choices. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I don't believe the wisdom of Soloman could have helped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrongway Feldman
Perhaps Wrongway has summarized the only common sense solution available. For it does allow EAA to fiscally(it does take big bucks) lead the assault on the FAA on behalf of GA by indeed getting up off the mat, tail between legs, wipe of the blood spatter, but with the ability to fight another day.
Don't forget the wording of EAA's announcement: "EAA today finalized a one-time agreement..."
As Dick's posting said a few pages back, the FAA didn't give EAA a definitive answer on whether they were going to get charged until barely three months before the show. Not really enough time to do anything drastic. Now, this gives them the opportunity to fight hard for 2014, and come up with some alternatives if the FAA stays firm.
With the time they had, the only real alternative would have been to cancel the show. I don't think that would have been in the best interests of EAA, for the hundreds of vendors who count on making serious sales contacts during the show, or for the hundreds of thousands of people for whom this is the high point of their aviation year.
EAA really made the only choice that was possible...but as the news release says, the agreement is ONE TIME. Sure, it sets a precedent, which won't help, but EAA will now have a year to come up with alternate arrangements.
Ron Wanttaja
Who said FAA is running in the Red??Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrongway Feldman
With Fuel Taxes, it looks like FAA actually makes $ from GA. It sure appears to me that GA, particularly private sport GA, is paying more into system than they get. I have no desire to subsidize the nearly bankrupt cash hungry airlines that use most of ATC.
Well, this thread has the best discussion on this subject, I read somewhere on one of these threads that the FAA gets 71% of it's funding from the fuel taxes, which means that 29% comes from someplace else. My guess is that is the "general fund". All these "trust funds" are just political speak for more tax revenues and each year the sitting Congress decides what to fund. This year they couldn't decide how to divide the pie, since there are too many folks at the table, so everybody has to take a smaller piece. Some say we already paid for our piece, but it looks like we only paid for 71% of the cost for the piece, but expect the same size slice as last year. The FAA says we'll give you the same size slice but it will cost you $450K up front or you can have the smaller slice without AirVenture. In response to "Wrongway", the whole federal govt is in the red and the fight is and always has been about who gets and who pays. Clearly the 1% are getting more then they need but they have the $$ so they get their way. This is not my "political" position, just looking at the charts.
Joe
As the old saying goes, "Once you pay the danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane".Quote:
Originally Posted by rwanttaja
Did the FAA send a bill to Arlington?
Arlington is July 11-13 (before Oshkosh), the temperary Arlington tower hours are 8:30-6:30pm with 3 hours closure for the air show. So that's 7 hours per day. They have a simple portable tower set up on the field and a remote approach controller on Friday and Saturday only.
Several months ago, I was told (by the FAA guy in charge of such things) that Arlington was going to receive a quote for close to $50,000. However, that was for a five-day tower, with longer hours than their notam indicates. My guess (and that's all it is at this point) is that they curtailed the tower hours of operation to lower the cost and then agreed to pay the bill.
I am the Air Operations chairman for the Copperstate Fly-In, and we're still waiting for a quote from the FAA. But I fully expect it to be in the vicinity of $30,000 for our usual three-day tower. If that is the case, we won't be paying; most likely the airport will just operate non-towered during the event, as it does the rest of the year.
Bully for you flibmeister!!! Run Copperstate like the Cactus fly in. Much easier to get in and out without the tower. As usual, I'll be there!Quote:
Originally Posted by flibmeister
-CubBuilder
EAA Chapter 691 President
That's the plan, although it does come with some disadvantages. Without the FAA there to absorb responsibility for any incidents, we're going to be more reticent about promoting the Showcase pattern, shortcut patterns for demo or passenger rides, that sort of thing. Not that folks can't do some of that on their own, of course; we just can't sanction it. Better for the average fly-in attendee, but some of our exhibitors may not be happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by cub builder
I'll be the guy with the nicest golf cart on the airport (orange Mini convertible). Flag me down and say hello!
I'll look for you.
Sorry for the thread drift. :)
I was thinking about all this earlier today, and it got me thinking.
Concerts and other big gatherings like football games hire local police officers to provide secutity and crowd control for their events. These private events pay for those services.
I think I have changed my tune to think that we should also be able to fund our services directly. However, and this is critical, we need to pay for the services we need, not inflated inefficient government services.
FAA dollars, and the government in general, are paying for defined benefit pensions and antiquated systems. Employees in the private sector typically have defined contribution pension funds (if they get a pension at all) and are always working to change and improve the systems they are working with. Retirement is not automatic at some age.
If, and only if, we can do something to ensure that we only pay for services rendered and not be sacked with the huge entitlement costs killing our government, I agree that we should pay a fee for our big event...