So what do you think is the right thing to do?
Printable View
So what do you think is the right thing to do?
FYI, AvWeb is already reporting EAA has caved in on paying.
It saddened me when I was perusing the poll results to see that Jonathan Harger, who lists his occupation in his public forum profile as "Government Advocacy Specialist at EAA", has voted that we should "Pay. We have no choice". Understand that I support completely Mr. Hargers' right to have an opinion and vote in the poll as an EAA member, but that just made me go, "Hmmmmm".
I agree.
As I posted elsewhere earlier today, nobody has paid anybody at this point, and this situation is far, far from over. We have multiple tools left in our toolbox.
Jonathan, like all of us on staff, is an EAA member. Like many of us, he was a member long before he started working here, and, as you correctly pointed out, he is completely entitled to his opinion, and to the right to express it here. I am completely confident in this case that that's all he was doing - expressing a personal opinion. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that opinion was tainted more than a little by the anger and frustration all of us are feeling because of this situation, but that...well, that's just my opinion.
Oshkosh will not be canceled, period. Whatever the short-term outcome of this move by the FAA, as I said: this is far, far from over.
If any of you really want to vote in a poll, why not go vote in this one?
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/poll/2013-06-05/7156221
This is just another example of why we have "problems" in congress. Both parties agreed to the "sequester" because they couldn't agree on what to "cut" and what to "fund". Our system is all about money, who pays and who benefits. Congress holds the purse strings and decides what to spend all revenues, there are no real trust funds just a big bucket called the US Treasury and Congress decides what to do with it every year. Yes, the President submits a budget, but it is always "amended" by Congress. Both parties have "earmarks" to satisfy the various "home crowds" and we all want to protect something. EAA and AOPA are just trying to protect there little corner and that is what the membership expects. Reality is slowly arriving, that we have changed the basis of this economy and can no longer hold the status quo. What is needed is a real agreement that has long-term positive impacts for the country as a whole. It's clearly not going to happen, so we get a whole lot of distractions over small things that don't have a big impact. This whole tower fee thing is a nit compared to what the challenge that we face. As far as the poll goes, I agree with Floatsflyer and I'm not voting.
Joe
:P
Done, Hal! Apparently not a hot button item locally with only 250 votes or so in the third day.
I also noticed this article while I was there that I thought others might find interesting....
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/artic...ol-tower-staff
I think the idea of the poll was to give the EAA leadership an idea where the members stand as that should (well I would say must, but I will stick with should) be a BIG factor on where they go with this. This is a very polarizing issue for sure and i think they need gross idea on where people stand on this, so I would encourage people to take the poll.
Hal, my hat is off to you and Steve and everyone else there that is trying to navigate these waters. This whole short notice thing was designed to put you into a difficult, no win situation. For once, a government agency did something well for EAA can;t win here, Jack just needs to figure out how to lose less. The saddening part of this while thing is where is the outrage on the part of the EAA? I have seen some very calm, matter of fact news releases from Jack and others, but my friend, you are getting blackmailed. Where is your outrage? Where are you drawing the moral line in the sand? I know (trust me I do know) that some negotiations with the FAA need to be private if you have any hope of winning. But, sorry, you don't have any hope of changing the FAA's mind here, the Senate campaign will fail in this because there is no time for legislation before, no hope the President will sign it and people will soon forget after August.
So it comes down to this, the FAA has had the courage to put everything on the line. Does the EAA? If you don't you lose. Sure you have your "AirVenture" as normal, but you have set a precedent that will never be undone and you have proven to the FAA that the largest Experimental Lobbying organization and the second largest Aviation Lobbying group can easily be pushed around. That loss of reputation is unrecoverable. FAA has bet everything that you will go for the short term money - prove them wrong.
And look, I keep harping on this, but will say it again. Airventure is a nice vacation, but you are not Airventure inc. In my mind at least, EAA exists as an industry trade group to protect me from bad people. I pay a lot of money and volunteer a lot of time for you to protect me from said bad people. So I don;t want to speak for the guy that started it, but I think this poll is really about that question. Has EAA become Airventure Inc, with every other service subordinated to that function or is the EAA willing to take a hit on Airventure to protect those in general aviation? Stated differently - are we going to choose short term balance sheet health for long term damage to GA?
That is really what this poll is asking, what do the members value more? I think it is important that the leadership knows what the members think.
Congress controls the FAA budget, and if EAA has enough allies in Congress then FAA can forgo this new charge that Congress did not authorize and which goes against the general sense of Congress re user fees. Both Bush and Obama administrations have asked for user fees and Congress has stood against them so far.
So, the EAA needs to do what any other group would do and demonstrate political power in this political battle.
Moral outrage by members on this forum or elsewhere directed at EAA leaders is not productive. .
They may also have their legal people take a look at if this is fair treatment across the board. Did the FAA charge the Republican Party for extra ATC services in conjunction with their national convention? How about the Superbowl or Kentucky Derby or any other big public event?
I'd guess that EAA has a good lawyer or two on staff and also many of our members may be attorneys, and even have some experience with this type of thing.
Thanks for your thoughtful contribution, Scott. Here are my thoughts in response to some of your points:
It must be, and it is.
Comments like that are greatly appreciated by all of us - probably more than you know.
If you could stop by our offices or, better still, the local watering hole just across the road this evening at about 6:00, you wouldn't need to ask that question, I promise...
We'll just agree to disagree there.
No, we're definitely not "AirVenture Inc." We are a membership organization, and Oshkosh is, at its core, our (to be crystal clear - I'm speaking as a member here when I say "our") annual convention.
No. Our focus is absolutely on the long term impact, and we hope everyone else's is as well. Regardless of the short-term outcome (and there are no foregone conclusions at this point) this is, as I've said and will keep saying, far from over.
While, as I said, like a couple of other members, I think the poll is premature, if I didn't support everyone's right to ask the questions and voice their opinions, I would have just removed it. Heck, if I didn't support those things, I wouldn't bother coming to work every day... Anyway, anyone who wants to vote, have at it! For those who don't and want to post or have already posted your reasons why, well...you guys have at it, too! :) That's why these forums exist.
I think this particular poll is flawed, because all the choices are "pay." Where is the option to not pay?
Even though when I really think about it, I find it hard to believe that EAA would accept the liability of any subsequent air accident if they didn't pay. That means they will be forced to pay what the FAA wants.
However, what I would really like to see is the EAA not pay at all. Not one cent. Call the FAA's bluff and see what happens. Is the FAA really willing to put lives in danger over this? I kinda believe that they are not, but even if they are, it would draw a really sharp dividing line on the purpose (or mission, some might say) of the FAA. And we would once and for all know where they stand regarding General Aviation.
But I know it will never happen, since EAA could be sued out of existence if an accident happens. The FAA can't no matter what happens. The EAA is really in a tough spot with this one and I really feel for the guys at EAA trying to work this out, especially in such a short time frame.
Pay or quit are strong words. I wouldn't quit but they shouldn't pay it.
Hey just for the record - I was not asking where the moral outrage against the EAA leaders is. Heck, while I have not met Hal yet, I really enjoy working with these guys and all have my utmost respect, especially Shawn Elliot, whom I owe much too.
My moral outrage snippet was that I want to see the EAA express some of it publically. Heck, I want to see the theme of this years convention be FAA overreach - I want to see someone selling T-shirts with the acronym FUFAA :)
You can make a good T shirt which expresses displeasure with the FAA without being obscene or crude.
The best one I have seen was at the little shop in Denver at Centennial airport next to Denver Jet Center.
It listed the four forces acting on an airplane.
1. Lift, going up
2. Gravity, going down
3. Money, pulling forward
and 4. The FAA dragging rearward
Pink T shirts?
Hal,
What happens to AirVenture this year if we don't pay? Does the FAA close the tower? Assuming they did that, could we get enough volunteers to spot and control traffic at an "uncontrolled" airport? If this is blackmail, then we need a grass roots campaign to clear up the conflict regarding the FAA's mission. Clearly we would loose a lot in attendance at AirVenture which reduces EAA revenues. Given the short notice, it would seem that are options regarding this year are very limited. Either we pay or wind up with a greatly reduced AirVenture this year, if that happens I'd like to see all EAA members go on a one month fuel purchase boycott.
Joe
:confused:
There are so many threads in 2 topic areas devoted to this subject now that I'm confused where I should post this. Anyway.....
I just received an email from Jack Pelton, in what is obviously a mass emailing from Membership Services, thanking me for my support for the Administrator pressure initiative. It even addressed me by my first name. I'm impressed, very nice touch EAA HQ to take the time to do this in light of the fact that time for you is very precious now and you have higher priorities to deal with.
I sent Jack a reply, I hope he receives it in some fashion.
Thanks for letting us know that it was appreciated. I guarantee you that Jack will see your reply.
Hey, Joe - all I've got for you is a couple of apologies. First, I'm sorry that I didn't see and reply to this earlier - lots of traffic to keep up with today, as you can guess. As for your questions, here comes the second apology when I tell you I can't even speculate on those things at this point.
- Hal
We as an organization ( speaking as a member ) need to take a stand for general aviation. I can think of no better moment in time than to just say no to extortion !. We have already paid for these services through the many taxes we all pay all year long , and now the FAA is going to fail to do the job we have paid it for. This is nothing short of holding a gun to our nose and taking our money. I for one believe that now is the time to stand and fight. If we fail to fight now then user fees at all airports will be just down the road. While I enjoy Airventure I will gladly vote to suspend it for this year if that is what it takes to send a message to our elected and non elected officials that we are not going to give in to thievery. Either we stand and fight for the future of general aviation , and that is exactly what this is about , or we may as well scrap our aircraft and forget our dreams. I say FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT.
Hal,
No apology needed, and thanks for your response.
vaflier,
GA is the smallest fish in the FAA pond, as I said in my first post, there are no "trust funds"! All taxes go into one big bucket and Congress decides what to do with it every year. The general public has been sold a bill of goods on taxes for years. No politician in D.C. wants to bring this up, it opens the door to a big can of worms and could create changes that reduce this center of "power". Since Congress couldn't decide on what to fund and what to cut they kicked the can down the road with "across the board cuts". The reaction is just beginning to be seen by the public and the response is "don't cut mine!". The FAA took a hit on the contract tower closings last month, now it's an AirVenture "fee". I would suggest the fight, if there is to be one should focus on the mission of the FAA. I believe there is a conflict between "public safety" and "promoting aviation". On the promoting side, we've seen a few situations where the FAA "looks the other way" on airline inspections and maintenance, then there's the whole "user fee" thing which is an attempt to shift some costs from the airlines to GA. I would like to see a fight to change the FAA mission to public safety. The airline industry is not some fledging business sector needing govt support to operate or grow. The public does expect the govt. to provide both a safe and secure transportation system. I do like your spirit, and believe we have to fight this, we just don't have enough information to make an intelligent decision. The poll is a necessary for the folks at EAA HQ to get some idea of where the membership stands. I would support a fight on the whole mission thing, and if I had some numbers on AirVenture revenues and costs we could vote on what to do next. Based on Hal's post I'd say the guys in Oshkosh have their hands full trying to sort this out. In the great D.C. budget debate $500K is a nit, but that could be a real show stopper in OSH!
Joe
:eek:
Interesting, well-thought out responses, all! It's kind of a poll outside the poll, but without choice limitations! I'm just going to cut and paste here what I emailed to EAA HQ in response to their "thank you" email....
"I think it's time to make a stand...unfortunately, against our government. The imposition and timing of these fees are nothing more than extortion out of what are perceived as deep pockets.
As a member/aircraft owner since 1971 and current owner of two aircraft, I assure you my pockets are not deep enough to support the governments' out of control actions on an individual basis thru fees. At our home field, we were told last week that 100LL goes up $.60 a gallon when the new load is purchased.
I am in support of EAA telling FAA they will NOT be paying any extra fees for AV and let the chips fall where they may. My wife, who flies a Citation Part 135, agrees with me on this, as the new 'policy' will ultimately negatively impact the entire industry.
Please pass these thoughts along to the powers that be in EAA.
Thanks!
Jim
EAA #64315"
I would like to see a choice of EAA does not pay. Let the FAA decided if they want to provide the service. This fee is unconstitutional. Only congress can create fees and tax.
i would stare the administrator in the face and tell him we are not going to comply. Let him take the next step.
they will then have to decide to close the tower, staff with the controllers they have there or do,the right thing.
EAA should request a house hearing so the administrator can answer questions under oath.
I hope that Congress makes this right, or that there are at least a few cooler and wiser heads at the FAA that will revise this.
I do hope this can be worked out and Airventure go on as usual.
If forced to make such a hard choice, I might even agree that EAA should POLITELY AND RESPECTFULLY decline to pay this fee.
So what happens then?
The FAA might staff the tower on their own funds and continue as before. Or contiue at less than maximum staffing which might make delays for a lot of traffic arriving.
Or they might try to issue a ruling that Airventure could not be held.
I don't think EAA is in a position to staff with other controllers or any such volunteers, and the traffic load is so big that we really do need good ATC services. It could not be done just as a fly in without as tower as is in smaller traffic events ,could be unsafe and have liability for EAA. And I say this even from a standpoint of preferring non tower airports most of the time. The contollers at Oshkosh seem much more polite and helpful and as if they really like gen aviation and fun planes, which is not always true at other airports.
I really and sincerely hope that this doesn't result in EAA deciding to cancel Airventure. It would be a major disappointment to thousand of people and an economic loss in the millions not only for Wisconsin , but vendors from all over.
A-men Bill,
The timing of this couldn't be worse! I do think we at least have one "ace in the hole" and that is the loss of millions in economic benefit if AirVenture is cancelled. I think HQ is scrabbling at this early stage but there will be hell to pay in D.C. when the Wisconsin representatives get wind of this and the fall out amongst the various AirVenture sponsors are faced with a cancellation. The economic impact far exceeds $500K! I suspect if GA withheld fuel purchases for a month the loss in fuel taxes would exceed that $500K as well. This may end in another FAA whimper rather than a bang!
Joe
:cool:
Forgive me if this seems like rehashing, but why do we not staff our ATC needs ourselves? We all claim we send too much $ to DC, but then we complain when the govt try's to trim its expenses.
Who here is a Controller? If you are a Current licensed Controller, would you volunteer to Control at Airventure? (Pls forward this thread to your Controller friends)
Military Controllers: Weigh in here too. Can you take leave to volunteer to Control?
How do we solve this problem ourselves without the FAA and without becoming a special interest?
PS: I, personally, would contribute to provide travel, lodging, food to volunteer controllers.
The per diem rate for Oshkosh is $77 for lodging, $46 for meals x 78 controllers x 6 days is @ $58000. Even if the controllers went first class you could not get to $500,000. As far as over time how much could that be with the airport closed at night and during the air shows.
no way the EAA should pay, but if they do they should ask for an itemizes bill.
Another tricky thing. Either the FAA is under sequestration or it is not. DoD is and we have been told that overtime is flat out not authorized. If the FAA is not restricted from overtime, that means it is FUNDED for these things (as we know that they are) and should not be charging for ANY personnel costs.
As I have said before, I am sure that the EAA's negotiators know these things. At least 28 Senators know this, too.
I have never understood a government agency that PLANS for the use of overtime to cover normal or predictable operational requirements. (and AirVenture is a predictable requirement.) You take the total number of man-hours required to perform your planned work for the year, divide by 1,688 (Full time equivalent hours) and that is how many people you need to have employed for that year. At least that is how I have justified my personnel requirements in various assignments in DoD. (That is for civilians. Military time is calculated somewhat differently.) Overtime is for unexpected requirements and emergencies (not exactly the same.) AirVenture does not fall into this category.
Well, I am not going to fix the FAA's manpower and budget mess here -- but no one else should be required to pay for it, either.
Happens in the civilian world all the time. The costs of hiring an employee is much more than their hourly wage. It's often cheaper to pay existing employees overtime than to hire the number of full-time people it would take to cover the same jobs without overtime.
This is especially true in jobs where the surges come at specific times. Say you need 400 labor-hours per week for 51 weeks per year. That's ten employees working 8-hour days. Say week 52 is the annual weed-whacker and slide trombone festival, and you need coverage for the same ten positions for 12 hours a day, or 600 total labor hours. If everyone's still working eight hours a day (e.g, no overtime) that 200 additional labor hours translates to 40 hours per day, or five additional employees.
The question is, what would those five additional employees do the REST of the year, when only ten total employees are sufficient?
In the example above, the total amount of overtime needed per year is 200 hours...one-tenth of what a single full-time employee normally works in a year. But hiring one additional full-time employee won't help, since you'll have only 11 employees during the festival, and they still have to work overtime.
In the civilian world, this is often handled by hiring contract or temp workers...or just firing people when the need is over.
Ron Wanttaja
Some swaggering (insert favorite negative adjective here) in DC figures we're rich, adictied, and will do whatever we're told. I'd hate to miss my 36th convention, but enough is enough. All those planes converging on KOSH burn an incredible quantity of fuel and consume tires. Those items are taxed to fund ADAP, which has already been hijacked to fund the FAA, so we've already been paying the freight from the get-go. Then there is the vast economic impact to the state of WI and the aviation industry in general. I suggest we don't blink- if some holier than thou bureacrat wants to sign his name to the order that chokes the goose and stops the golden eggs, so be it. I suspect some big guns will be brought to bear and that will result one less burreaucrat in DC, and perhaps the FAA will get back to their charter of promoting aviation instead of this self-appointed task of taxing the biggest aviation event in the world out of existence. Then next year we can toast the departed bureaucrat year in Scholler when the convention resumes.
Called and shut off my auto renew on my membership today (would have renewed end of this month). I do not want to renew until I see how EAA handles this issue.
You might note that the FAA Mission statement below does not mention promotion of aviation in any way, shape or form. Expecting that from the FAA is wishful thinking, but certainly not their mission.
-CubBuilder
----------------
FAA Mission Statement Quoted directly in it's complete form from <http://www.faa.gov/about/mission/>
Our Mission
Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.
Our Vision
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.
Our Values
- Safety is our passion. We work so all air and space travelers arrive safely at their destinations.
- Excellence is our promise. We seek results that embody professionalism, transparency and accountability.
- Integrity is our touchstone. We perform our duties honestly, with moral soundness, and with the highest level of ethics.
- People are our strength. Our success depends on the respect, diversity, collaboration, and commitment of our workforce.
- Innovation is our signature. We foster creativity and vision to provide solutions beyond today's boundaries.