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

Jun 06, 2013 5:24 PM CST
FAA released this statement to Action 2 News WBAY:

The FAA is not implementing a new fee.
But asking the EAA to cover the cost associated with the event like transportation for the controllers
and staffing to cover their home positions during the AirVenture because of tight budget constraints.
We received the letter from the Members of Congress and we are drafting a response.

Members of Congress are upset with the FAA's demands for two reasons:

1. The FAA's rules assessing these new fees are very unclear
2. They say new federal policies are usually proposed and discussed before being implemented

Below is the link to the News source on the topic:

WBAY TV 2 News, Video & Text

It is more than "usually proposed" before being implemented. There is USUALLY a "Notice of Inquiry." The FAA is specifically bound, by law (the Administrative Procedures Act as defined by the Office of Management and Budget) to issue a Notice of Proposed Rule Making" for anything that affects the general public interest. It requires a 60 day notice and comment period followed by 30 days for the government agency (in this case the FAA) to respond.

The whole notion that the FAA can charge for services already budgeted in its appropriation would represent a significant change in its rules.

But I am sure that EAA's lawyers know that.

That kind of money could be saved easily by having one nuclear powered aircraft carrier slowed 20knots for two days and reselling the tons and tons of garbage thrown overboard for fertilizer. Last I heard, WWIII has not started (facetious)! If that will not work, have all FAA inspectors and personnel take a 2% pay cut! Seriously, major aircraft mfg's are in control and have their own inspectors. Desk jobs are not that strenuous (we have computers now) - been there, done that! The FAA should sell tickets to specific safety seminars that by attendance can lower your insurance rates and tuck that cash away for rainy days in Oshkosh, but then again, saving money is a bad idea! IA's are already paying "X' amount of dollars for 8 hour seminars. I don't know about you, but $447,000 demanded cash divided by 87 controllers = $5137.93 for each controller for one week. Now that is a nice sized payday times 52 weeks = $267,172.36 annual salary if that were to be the case. I WANT THAT binocular JOB! Who's kidding who or whom??

I posted this to another thread: "Concerts and other big gatherings like football games hire local police officers to provide security 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..."

We do pay for our services already! What else do you get for the nearly 20 cents per gallon on AvGas than ATC?

Perhaps if the discussion was a modification of the tax in order to ensure it fully covered costs, that would be ok. But that would be only after proper procedure and time for comment, not a demand under duress.

I intend to fly from (and to) the east coast without talking to ATC until I get to OSH, the way I see it my $25 in fuel taxes for that trip is my user fee for OSH ATC.

I have an idea..Everyone stay home.

Flying is great but the politics suck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ted Klapka

We do pay for our services already! What else do you get for the nearly 20 cents per gallon on AvGas than ATC?

Perhaps if the discussion was a modification of the tax in order to ensure it fully covered costs, that would be ok. But that would be only after proper procedure and time for comment, not a demand under duress.

I intend to fly from (and to) the east coast without talking to ATC until I get to OSH, the way I see it my $25 in fuel taxes for that trip is my user fee for OSH ATC.

---

We pay for 'normal' services (airports, weather, ATC, etc) through the fuel taxes, just like we pay for police and fire protection through our local state taxes. Since this is a 'special' event that requires special services, the way it is being presented is that it requires a special fee. I don't think it is right, but it may be necessary. The biggest thing I think is that we should not have to pay for all the 'built in' government inefficiencies. If they could figure out what the real cost was then it may be more bearable. Just like some of the security at a NFL football game, maybe we should pay the controllers x number of dollars per hour for their help and then we take over all the other expenses (printing the notam (do we pay for that already?), etc)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan

We pay for 'normal' services (airports, weather, ATC, etc) through the fuel taxes, just like we pay for police and fire protection through our local state taxes. Since this is a 'special' event that requires special services, the way it is being presented is that it requires a special fee. I don't think it is right, but it may be necessary. The biggest thing I think is that we should not have to pay for all the 'built in' government inefficiencies. If they could figure out what the real cost was then it may be more bearable. Just like some of the security at a NFL football game, maybe we should pay the controllers x number of dollars per hour for their help and then we take over all the other expenses (printing the notam (do we pay for that already?), etc)...

---

The FAA has been providing coverage at OSH for over 30 years. If they haven't been budgeting for this, they're dumber than I thought they were, and someone in the upper ranks needs to be sent packing.

I'd like to see a list of the 25 or so Congressmen who have tried to help EAA, who signed the letter of protest to the FAA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan

We pay for 'normal' services (airports, weather, ATC, etc) through the fuel taxes, just like we pay for police and fire protection through our local state taxes. Since this is a 'special' event that requires special services, the way it is being presented is that it requires a special fee. I don't think it is right, but it may be necessary. The biggest thing I think is that we should not have to pay for all the 'built in' government inefficiencies. If they could figure out what the real cost was then it may be more bearable. Just like some of the security at a NFL football game, maybe we should pay the controllers x number of dollars per hour for their help and then we take over all the other expenses (printing the notam (do we pay for that already?), etc)...

---

I think Airventure is at least as normal as increases at Christmas time at LAX. It has been going since????? and nobody saw it coming?

If I applied this logic, all airline passengers in and out of a city should pay an increase in terminal fees whenever there is a special event such as the Super Bowl.