FAA Wants EAA To Pay Them To Staff Oshkosh l

[Jim Rosenow]

Hi Jim -

That's our weekly electronic newsletter for EAA members:

http://www.eaa.org/ehotline/

Thanks, Hal...not sure how I missed that.

[FloridaJohn]

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!

[trav8s]

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.

[Jeff Boatright]

Logically, why shouldn't EAA and its members have to pay for additional ATC services at AirVenture? If I decide to hold an event in my town that requires a police detail to direct vehicle traffic, guess who pays? Hint: my taxes don't cover it. This is what smaller government looks like: fewer services, less money for infrastructure, research, and education, and higher fees for what IS provided.

And no offense, but as pilots we tend to have more disposable cash than most people, so there's something kind of unseemly about hearing fellow pilots complain about loss of free ATC when mandatory budget cuts are hitting other Americans harder than us.

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.

[Jeff Boatright]

The FAA is not charging for ATC services at AirVenture. They've demanded payment for an extra level of service that a private corporation has requested.

Land's sake, folks. I don't think I've been on an aviation forum that hasn't decried big government, and pushed for a reduction in entitlements. We may not *like* that AirVenture is affected, but this sort of action is exactly what folks have been demanding.

Ron Wanttaja

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?

[Jeff Boatright]

We the attendees should ALL pay because it is OUR problem and we ALL should care. This is not the type of problem we can pass the buck onto someone else because this is only the beginning. Adding that extra burden courtesy of the FAA will spur people to take action to protect their own interests.

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.

[FloridaJohn]

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.

[scott f]

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.

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.

[Bill Berson]

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.

[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.

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.

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.