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.

The fee being asked for is for air traffic controller lodging and travel. They are not asking for any of the salaries for controllers at OSH, not to mention overtime to cover them at their facilities, and overtime at places like MKE and Chicago TRACON. The logic of your super bowl and Christmas time scenarios doesn't apply because there is no cost to move or lodge controllers since they already work there.

Also, everyone who voted for smaller government take a long look in the mirror. You wanted it, this is what it looks like.

Lastly as being a former resident of Wisconsin I am curious why EAA has not asked the state to help pitch in. They have made millions if not billions over the past 30 years from EAA and AIrventure. You would think they would want to keep Airventure around. 400,000 dollars seems like a drop in the bucket to the millions of revenue this event brings into the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obmaha

The fee being asked for is for air traffic controller lodging and travel. They are not asking for any of the salaries for controllers at OSH, not to mention overtime to cover them at their facilities, and overtime at places like MKE and Chicago TRACON.

---

Wrong. The fee includes travel, lodging, salaries for the ATC at OSH, AND overtime to cover their shifts at their home fields.

There are about 100 controllers that come to OSH, so the nearly $500,000 fee from the FAA results in a cost of around $5,000 per controller. That is a little high for just travel and lodging, even for the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obmaha

The logic of your super bowl and Christmas time scenarios doesn't apply because there is no cost to move or lodge controllers since they already work there.

---

There is still overtime to pay, and for events like the super bowl, I would be very surprised if they didn't bring in extra controllers from somewhere else. It's not like these ATC facilities have that amount of extra capacity just sitting around waiting for the super bowl to come back to town every 5-10 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obmaha

Also, everyone who voted for smaller government take a long look in the mirror. You wanted it, this is what it looks like.

---

I'm all for smaller government, but this is not what it looks like. What everyone seems to forget, is this is a service we have already paid for in advance. Every time you pump a gallon of Avgas, twenty cents goes directly to pay for ATC services. Oshkosh air traffic control services were already budgeted in the annual FAA budget (and have been for decades). The fact that there is more air traffic every year around the last week of July in Wisconsin is a surprise to no one.

I don't understand how smaller goverment means we get to pay twice for everything. Seems like the exact opposite to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FloridaJohn

Wrong. The fee includes travel, lodging, salaries for the ATC at OSH, AND overtime to cover their shifts at their home fields.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FloridaJohn

There are about 100 controllers that come to OSH, so the nearly $500,000 fee from the FAA results in a cost of around $5,000 per controller. That is a little high for just travel and lodging, even for the government.

---

I stand corrected, to a point. I looked at the contract and saw that they budgeted 90,000 for overtime (my guess is that is overtime worked at OSH not backfill for their facilities). That is a nice break from the FAA considering that won't come near to the actual cost of overtime. Lets just look at the 80 (not 100) controllers coming to Oshkosh. If each controller averaged 80,000 a year salary which is very much on the low end probably seeing many of the controllers are veterans. That is 42 dollars an hour. 40 hour work week equals 1,680. But wait, we forgot the OT to backfill. That equals 2,520 for each controller for a grand total of 201,600 dollars in OT. Again using low ball numbers. Again, not even counting the OT for surrounding facilities.

[QUOTE=There is still overtime to pay, and for events like the super bowl, I would be very surprised if they didn't bring in extra controllers from somewhere else. It's not like these ATC facilities have that amount of extra capacity just sitting around waiting for the super bowl to come back to town every 5-10 years.[/QUOTE]


I have worked a super bowl, and yes we used OT. They brought in a small amount (I believe under 10) controllers to work temp towers at relief airports. To this date there has not been a super bowl during sequestration. My guess the jury is still out on who will pay the bill. That being said the amount of money for airventure vs super bowl is laughable. One day event verses a weeklong event. Come on now, apples to oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm all for smaller government, but this is not what it looks like. What everyone seems to forget, is this is a service [B

we have already paid for in advance.[/B] Every time you pump a gallon of Avgas, twenty cents goes directly to pay for ATC services. Oshkosh air traffic control services were already budgeted in the annual FAA budget (and have been for decades). The fact that there is more air traffic every year around the last week of July in Wisconsin is a surprise to no one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm all for smaller government, but this is not what it looks like. What everyone seems to forget, is this is a service [B

I don't understand how smaller government means we get to pay twice for everything. Seems like the exact opposite to me.

---

I understand the argument for double taxation and it bothers me as well. That being said I have heard that around 300,000-500,000 dollars are collected in fuel tax at airventure. I would be curious to see a hard figure on that amount. That being said I don't think the fuel tax covers the true cost of airventure from the FAA side.


Overall this is my 24th year going to Oshkosh. I love it there. While I agree the FAA has not handled this in a good manner, you can't tell me after Sun'n'Fun that EAA didn't see this coming. I can see both sides of the argument and respect yours and others views of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obmaha

I stand corrected, to a point. I looked at the contract and saw that they budgeted 90,000 for overtime (my guess is that is overtime worked at OSH not backfill for their facilities). That is a nice break from the FAA considering that won't come near to the actual cost of overtime. Lets just look at the 80 (not 100) controllers coming to Oshkosh. If each controller averaged 80,000 a year salary which is very much on the low end probably seeing many of the controllers are veterans. That is 42 dollars an hour. 40 hour work week equals 1,680. But wait, we forgot the OT to backfill. That equals 2,520 for each controller for a grand total of 201,600 dollars in OT. Again using low ball numbers. Again, not even counting the OT for surrounding facilities.

---

I agree with your calculations, but really, that FAA "budget" for OSH is pretty sparse. There is no detail, that I am aware of, of how they came to those numbers in the first place. So, yes, they only list $90,000 for overtime pay, but they list a staggering $340,104 for "travel." Using your number of controllers as 80 (which is probably more accurate than my earlier guess), that is $4251.30 for each controller's travel arrangements. Divide that by the 15 days they will be providing services and that is $283.42 per person per day. The GSA shows the per diem rate for Wisconson as $77/day for lodging and $46/day for meals, for a total of $123/day for travel, using government rates. So the FAA is charging the EAA 230% of it's cost for "travel." Pretty good profit margin on that.

Frankly, I don't think the FAA ever put together an actual budget for OSH before they forced the cost onto EAA. That is why their budget lacks considerable detail and doesn't even pass basic back-of-the-envelope calculations like you did for overtime and I did for travel. I don't think they really expected EAA to want that sort of detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obmaha

I have worked a super bowl, and yes we used OT. They brought in a small amount (I believe under 10) controllers to work temp towers at relief airports. To this date there has not been a super bowl during sequestration. My guess the jury is still out on who will pay the bill. That being said the amount of money for airventure vs super bowl is laughable. One day event verses a weeklong event. Come on now, apples to oranges.

---

My response was only to your statement that expenses to the FAA were so much lower for the Super Bowl because they didn't bring anyone in from out of town, but as you just said, they clearly are. So the only real difference in price then is the number of controllers required and the number of days needed. I would guess the Super Bowl will cost around $5600 per controller per day (based on the EAA rate). So your ten controllers will cost $56,000 additional each day of enhanced ATC services during the Super Bowl. I also would guess that the extra controllers are needed for more than one day, since a lot of people fly in for the weekend and are flying before and after the Super Bowl and not just during the day of the big game. So if we figure three days, that is $167,971.50 to either the NFL or the host city for services during the Super Bowl. So I don't think they are completely different, just different in size.

Even though there is a Super Bowl every year somewhere, and it should be budgeted into the FAA budget just like everything else. If the FAA needs more money, they can go to congress and ask for an increase in the fuel tax. That is how the process is supposed to work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obmaha

While I agree the FAA has not handled this in a good manner, you can't tell me after Sun'n'Fun that EAA didn't see this coming.

---

I think the EAA did see this coming. The EAA was the one who had to force the FAA to put down in writing what they wanted the money for. Heck, they had to force the FAA to even admit they were planning on charging the EAA. The FAA should have been giving notice in February, not May, if they were going to substantially change the rules of the game.

Did House of Representatives members ever send a letter to the FAA like the Senate did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obmaha

(my guess is that is overtime worked at OSH not backfill for their facilities)

---

Your guess would be wrong-- the FAA is very specific that the overtime costs being billed to show organizers is to cover for the absence of controllers at the home facilities, not for the event itself.

One thing I'd like to point out: the practice of the FAA charging event organizers for the cost of additional ATC services is NOT new-- NASCAR and the PGA, just to name a couple, have been paying such fees for years. And, the FAA has been attempting to get other events to sign reimbursable agreements for years, although they've generally exempted aviation events, if local ATC folks found a way to pay for it out of their local budgets.

What's new is that the FAA is now requiring reimbursable agreements for ALL special events, even those previously budgeted-- no discretion, no exceptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flibmeister

Your guess would be wrong-- the FAA is very specific that the overtime costs being billed to show organizers is to cover for the absence of controllers at the home facilities, not for the event itself.

---

I am just curious if you can cite a souce or article where the FAA has been specific about overtime costs? Everything I have read has been very non-specific about the costs including the contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obmaha

I am just curious if you can cite a souce or article where the FAA has been specific about overtime costs? Everything I have read has been very non-specific about the costs including the contract.

---

You'll find it on page 17, here:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2013/2013-07...TC-charges.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obmaha

I am just curious if you can cite a source or article where the FAA has been specific about overtime costs? Everything I have read has been very non-specific about the costs including the contract.

---

The position of the FAA regarding where the overtime money goes (ie, that it's used to pay controllers at the home facilities who cover the absence of the special event controllers) comes straight from the mouth of an FAA "OSG Airshow Specialist". I've been in discussions with him for months, regarding a reimbursable agreement for the temporary tower at the Copperstate Fly-In. The way he explained it to me, doing it that way is for the show organizers benefit-- if, after the show, it turns out that the absence of the controller from his home facility didn't result in the need to call in OT, the show organizer will get a refund.

Eliminate the class three medical for private pilots flying non-commercial and it should cover it and then some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MEdwards

Did House of Representatives members ever send a letter to the FAA like the Senate did?

---

Here today is the answer to my own question:

http://eaa.org/news/2013/2013-07-25_...e-ATC-fees.asp

Only 30 signatures from the House. Pretty pitiful, won't get any help there. I'm not surprised to see that my own "representative" dd not sign it.

The FAA's response to the Senators' letter was pretty pitiful too. No justification (they obviously think no justification is required), they just said "we did it."

Got a nice form letter from the junior senator from New Mexico, Tom Udall, saying he's fully behind us in opposing these new user fees. Granted he's probably more concerned about the Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta, which he says is in the same boat as the rest of the events, but his heart and his words are in the right place.

Still nothing, as expected, from my Tea Party congressman. There is interest from some in that group though, as evidenced by the interview with Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma I heard over the much improved sound system as I prepared to depart from Oshkosh on Saturday.

So, we gonna go to a non-towered airport next year? Avoid the fees by avoiding the feds? Flash mob, anyone? :)

Well, shoot. Politics as usual. The same day I get the "nice form letter" from Senator Udall, I get an email from AOPA announcing a $500-$2500 per person reception for Senator Udall sponsored by AOPA and several other aviation organizations, with checks to be sent to Udall's campaign committee.

Is the reception thanks for the "nice form letter," or was the letter just eyewash getting the Senator access to a bunch of wealthy contributors? Politics is politics, I suppose. I'm disappointed.

"Also, everyone who voted for smaller government take a long look in the mirror. You wanted it, this is what it looks like. " (OBMAHA)

I try to not get too political in the EAA forums. However I can't let the above statement just slide. First off the general public did not get to vote on smaller government. We have elected representatives and the only thing that has happened is a vote to not continue bloating the government which has an appetite for our money that will never be satiated.

To illustrate my point I offer this,
"In fact, the FAA’s post-sequester funding will be even more than what it asked for in President Obama’s fiscal-year 2013 budget resolution. Domestic air travel has declined 27 percent since 2000, but the FAA’s operations budget has since grown by nearly $3 billion, or 30 percent."
from an article (Extravagance at the FAA) by Andrew Stiles <http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346688/extravagance-faa>

So unless the above is just a bald face lie published by the National Review, I am to understand that the FAA has received more money in it's budget than it even asked for, yet somehow, this year, Airventure, an event that has come along every year since the 1950's has somehow managed to crimp the budget of the FAA this particular year.

I would say to OBMAHA that those who are in favor of bloated government, continuously wasting our money, are in fact the people that ought to be taking a good hard look in the mirror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickfe

~snip~ i would say to obmaha that those who are in favor of bloated government, continuously wasting our money, are in fact the people that ought to be taking a good hard look in the mirror.

---

amen!
[/cose thread]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdrmuetzel@juno.com

So, we gonna go to a non-towered airport next year? Avoid the fees by avoiding the feds? Flash mob, anyone? :)

---

If you're going to close airspace (e.g., have an airshow), the FAA gets involved and we have to pay the going rate to be their "friends."

If the EAA is willing to run the show without an airshow, they could probably pull it off with an uncontrolled field. However, a lot of the big-buck supporters would probably be unwilling to risk their lives (and their Gulfstreams) in the furball that Oshkosh airspace would become. Without the airshow, attendance would probably suffer as the non-flying citizens don't bother to attend. Without the attendance, many vendors would probably decide to give the show a pass. That might include the food vendors, as well...if they overestimate the crowd and buy too much food, they'll be in bad shape. Many of the vendors run forums on their products, so a lot of the forums probably would disappear. Might not be worth it to break out some of the amenities, like the showers. There'd be no money to pay for warbird gas or VIP perks.

All you'd be left with is a bunch of unwashed Fly Baby, Long-EZ, and RV nuts crouching on the ground, cooking hot dogs and talking about airplanes.

Hmmmm...where do I sign up? :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

All you'd be left with is a bunch of unwashed Fly Baby, Long-EZ, and RV nuts crouching on the ground, cooking hot dogs and talking about airplanes.

Hmmmm...where do I sign up? :-)

---

Right here: http://www.copperstate.org

We ditched the air show several years ago, when the restrictions that came with the waiver became too confining. This year, we're ditching the tower, too, rather than pay the ransom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flibmeister

Right here: http://www.copperstate.org

We ditched the air show several years ago, when the restrictions that came with the waiver became too confining. This year, we're ditching the tower, too, rather than pay the ransom.

---

I'll be there. I've flown in a couple times in the last five years, and I always thought the tower was marginally useful anyway. Best of luck, hope it works out OK.

My understanding is that federal agencies were directed to make their cuts as noticeable and painful for the general public as possible. That way, people will notice and then hear Obama say that he is doing his best against those mean Republicans. I am not sure where I heard that any longer but its' what I recall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flibmeister

Right here: http://www.copperstate.org

We ditched the air show several years ago, when the restrictions that came with the waiver became too confining. This year, we're ditching the tower, too, rather than pay the ransom.

---

Didn't Dee Grimm say that he was going to bring back the airshow? I think that I saw that in the announcement that he is the new Copperstate VP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill

Didn't Dee Grimm say that he was going to bring back the airshow? I think that I saw that in the announcement that he is the new Copperstate VP.

---

We're always looking at the idea, especially as a way to increase attendance by the general public, but the restrictions of the waiver make it difficult at our current locale. Among other things, we have two air ambulance helicopter operators on the field, widely separated, that each has to be surrounded with it's own sterile zone-- which eats up a ton of ramp space. Plus, development on the north and east sides of the airport would probably limit us to a Category III show line. Things (including the airport where the event is held) can change, though.

I have been at just about every CopperState Fly-In since I started attending in Prescott. Personally, I was glad to see the Air Show go away. I would much rather see the parade of planes coming and going all day. The tower at CopperState offers very little as the Cactus Fly In at the same airport in the spring operates without a tower. Cactus isn't quite as big as CopperState, but the lack of tower doesn't seem to impede traffic flow at all. The only advantage I've seen to having the tower at CopperState is that it keeps the training schools from flying practice IFR approaches through the airshow traffic, which is sometimes an issue during the Cactus Fly In. I'll be there in October.

-CubBuilder

The experience that Cactus has operating without a tower is what gives us confidence that Copperstate can do the same, without compromising the safety of the event. It's a loss in some ways, though: with the tower, we could run the Showcase pattern, special passenger ride and factory demo patterns, FuelVenture and any other "off the wall" stuff we wanted to, because the tower would both control it AND (most importantly) accept the liability if anything went wrong. Without the tower, we have to pretty much stick to normal ops and let the operation run on it's own, lest we get saddled with liability. It won't affect most attendees, but some of the exhibitors will be negatively affected.

As for the air show, it's definitely a mixed blessing: most pilots couldn't care less, so were glad to see it go. A lot of the public, though, come to the event primarily to SEE the air show, so we lose a lot of the revenue that used to come through the gate. IMHO, with the entire air show industry in a state of flux right now, it's hard to see it coming back anytime soon.

See you in October!

Denny

I don't see the lack of a tower at Copperstate will keep the vendors from putting their planes up in the pattern for a fly by or two or for a ride out of the pattern. Many do the same during Cactus. FWIW, the confines of the showcase were way too tight when I flew it with my fast plane. It was some serious cranking and banking to stay within the confines as briefed. It makes more sense to join the pattern and do a missed approach fly by. See you in Oct.

Sorry for high-jacking the thread to comment only on CopperState. Back to the regularly scheduled thread. :cool:

-CubBuilder