EAA petition about user fees

murphey

murphey

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
11,878
Location
Colorado
Display Name
Display name:
murphey
http://www.eaa.org/news/2013/2013-06-03_EAA-members-act-now.asp#.Ua6uzNpEdkk.facebook

Why we don't need user fees.

• In the 2011 FAA Civil Aviation Economic Report, General Aviation contributes $100 Billion to the US Economy
• We already pay to support thru the fuel tax

There are state-specific $$$ at your state's aeronautics division of transportation or whatever it's called. Taking Colorado as an example,

• The General Aviation community in Colorado has a population of more than 15,000 pilots!
• General Aviation in Colorado alone contributes more than $1.3 Billion annually to the Colorado economy.
• More than 1.8 millions visitors visit Colorado on General Aviation aircraft

And to "correct" that Senior FAA Official's absurd remark about safety at AirVenture, I quote from the FAA website:

"Our mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world."
 
Last edited:
15,000 pilots contribute 1.3 billion in CO? Hmmm methinks those CO pilots can afford user fees. Lolzzz. This silly eaa rant isn't about user fees it is about them getting special treatment. Yawn.
 
ClimbnSink said:
15,000 pilots contribute 1.3 billion in CO? Hmmm methinks those CO pilots can afford user fees. Lolzzz. This silly eaa rant isn't about user fees it is about them getting special treatment. Yawn.
Click to expand...

And you take facts out of context. General aviation is not exclusively the pilots who reside in Colorado. It's also all the non-scheduled flights bringing biz jets, tourists, visitors, skiers (during ski season) and so on. It's the out-of-state pilots coming in for the CPA Mountain flying course this weekend. It's the many medical flights, both emergency (Air Methods, Mayo, etc) as well as non-emergency (AngelFlight and Bonfils blood drives). It's all the fuel that's purchased by non-commercial aircraft.

So, call the state aeronautics division in your state and find out the economic impact of GA in your state. Then come back and disparage the user fee issue.
 
Mind you, the EAA is a non-profit organization.
 
I guess my opinion would hedge on whether the EAA has asked the FAA to run the event, or if the FAA insists on running it. If it's by request, the EAA should pay for it. Either that, or make do with the one or two controllers who normally staff the tower.
 
Dean V said:
Sorry Jack Pelton, I do not believe the decision to require the EAA to pay for controllers at AirVenture is "outrageous" and I wont be calling my representatives. I do not believe the govt should subsidize an event with $13 million in gate receipts plus other revenues.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this argument.

What does it matter if there are gate receipts totalling 13 million? What are the total gate receipts daily for DFW? ATL? MSP? Do they have to pony up each week for the controllers, or does it get funded by the balance of fuel taxes and passenger fees that the airlines have agreed to?

If the gov't has a reasonable warning that they will need to staff ATC for a particular airport every year for a week, they better plan for it and budget for it. My fuel taxes have already paid for it.

The fact that EAA might earn gate dollars has nothing at all to do with this.

Tim
 
Dean V said:
If AirVenture were cancelled, how would it effect air transportation? The level of fuel taxes you are paying is insufficient to fund fluff and congress doesn't want to borrow more money like they did last year for airventure controllers. Choices are being made including furlowing federal employess and raiding the aviation trust fund. Sorry if EAA/AirVenture, an organization paying zero in federal and state taxes, giving up 2 cents on a $26 admission for controllers seems "outrageous".
Click to expand...

If AirVenture were cancelled, I imagine that it would greatly effect air transportation, evidently there are enough operations during that week that the FAA feels that it needs to have a staffed tower.

Or - if you meant air transportation = big shiny jets: I wasn't aware that the Fed mandate for FAA/ATC was only to manage and provide services in the national airspace system, but only for the big shiny jets.

Again, this has nothing to do with how much/little EAA makes on gate tickets. Other capitalistic enterprises make money using the services of ATC, and don't get billed separately.

You think AirVenture is "fluff", I think we've provided the feds with XYZ dollars and a list of responsibilities, and they need to work within that budget or if a shortfall is ABSOLUTE, then spread it across all effected customers.

Tim
 
It's air traffic, and highly predictable air traffic at that. The air traffic system should plan and prepare for it. Just like they put temporary towers up for other events that are well-known, vector folks around the President out joyriding in AF1, etc.
 
Some folks have bought into the brainwashing that our current financial situation is the result of the taxpayers not paying enough.
 
p.s. That includes budgeting for it -- just as they've done in all years past. A paper-pusher can be laid off if the main mission of the air traffic system is suddenly in jeopardy in a world where there's unlimited funds for AIG bailouts and military-style takedowns of suspected drug aircraft "found" via a multi-hundred-million-dollar database in Alamagordo, NM.
 
Budget for it. HAha that is a good one. Budgets are for poor people, when you have a printing press you don't need no stinking budget.
 
Yeah, I realized the mistake after I posted it. Government having to run to a budget that isn't a complete fallacy in the first place, isn't happening.
 
Dean V said:
Sorry Jack Pelton, I do not believe the decision to require the EAA to pay for controllers at AirVenture is "outrageous" and I wont be calling my representatives. I do not believe the govt should subsidize an event with $13 million in gate receipts plus other revenues.
Click to expand...

Folks slow down. There are two different petitions going right now. There is a completely separate petition regarding AirVenture & the FAA. Geico posted that link in a different thread. The link in the original posting is for overall user fees, not just AirVenture.
 
So your position is that Airventure creates no federal, state or local tax revenue? Have you ever attended? Have you ever bought anything while there?

Dean V said:
If AirVenture were cancelled, how would it effect air transportation? The level of fuel taxes you are paying is insufficient to fund fluff and congress doesn't want to borrow more money like they did last year for airventure controllers. Choices are being made including furlowing federal employess and raiding the aviation trust fund. Sorry if EAA/AirVenture, an organization paying zero in federal and state taxes, giving up 2 cents on a $26 admission for controllers seems "outrageous".
Click to expand...
 
And the IRS hasn't been targeting conservative groups with respect to tax exempt status. Right. I can't believe anybody is so naive as to think this is really about the money.


Dean V said:
I am certain Airventure creats lots of local and state tax revenue , and lots of people spend money tbere - that is not the issue.

The issue is how the FAA allots funds under sequester. Overtime, travel, and non-essential services are the first to go when you are balancing a govt budget.

EAA has the funds to pay for these services and their position is politically without support outside general aviation and the Oshkosh area.
Click to expand...
 
Can you provide a list of the most enlightened decisions that have come from the FAA on any subject since you've been watching? Do you really think the layoffs are the result of good management?

Conservative groups tend to be business people who could solve this problem in about 15 minutes, but that opportunity won't be made available.

Dean V said:
No, its about money. Just ask someone who got a letter this week explaining how their annual work hours are being shortened.

Just ask the ask the conservative groups that were targeted by te IRS if they would approve of govt money to be spent on overtime for an air show.
Click to expand...
 
The problem with 2 cents of a $26 ticket is that the EAA isn't paying for tickets, we are. No, ticket prices aren't going to go up 2¢ to cover it, but if it becomes a regular practice then prices that you pay for everything at Airventure will go up whatever percentage it takes to make you pay for it instead of the EAA. We already pay taxes to fund the FAA, an additional 2 cents of a $26 ticket is essentially an additional tax, targeted at a specific event. It's a tax increase, plain and simple. It just has a limited scope. Also, if it works out the way they plan then you can expect to see it more often. The government doesn't stop holding you up by the anke to shake the change out of your pockets just because you say stop. They only stop when we make them stop.

Don't be a fool who says that it's just 2¢ so it's not a big deal, stand up and say get your dang hand out of my pocket! Or at least get out of the way while the menfolk run the tax collectors out of town.

Sorry, I know the thread is about user fees, but it's really the same tax collector, he's just holding you by the other anke.
 
I'd rather you pay 2 cents more at your party for the atc you want then have them take 2 cents out of the avgas tax I pay since I ain't going to the big ball.
 
Since this has migrated to Airventure, let me post a comment by someone (not an EAA employee but knowledgeable, someone I've known for years and have no doubt about the veracity of the comments)

Question:
With all that we spend the FAA's portion is a no brainer...probably should be increased...hopefully the EAA does cover the expenses for the controllers and provides them with housing...it certainly is the least they could do...but I don't know what they do...​
Answer:

EAA never has [covered expenses & housing]. Nor does the EAA explicitly request the FAA do all that it does during AirVenture. That's something that the FAA did on its own (of course a gradual evolution over 50 years). The big problem EAA has with this is that it amounts to blackmail. Two months before the event--when the budgets have long been finalized--they say "if you want your waiver you have to pay us $475,000." They did the same thing with Sun 'N Fun ($150,000 I believe) and unfortunately SnF caved in and paid, setting a bad precedent


Note: I heard rumors that SnF bill was over $200K but can't verify it.
 
Last edited:
;)
Dean V said:
I am certain Airventure creats lots of local and state tax revenue , and lots of people spend money tbere - that is not the issue.

The issue is how the FAA allots funds under sequester. Overtime, travel, and non-essential services are the first to go when you are balancing a govt budget.

EAA has the funds to pay for these services and their position is politically without support outside general aviation and the Oshkosh area.
Click to expand...


Sequester is nothing more then a HUGE scam... Just like Bernie Madoff did......

For instance....................... In this remote neck of the U.S. the two big National Parks.. Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Park did the usual and predicted whining of " boo hoo", we are out of money because of the sequester.... Did they lay off any of the HUNDREDS of their employees off... NO... What they did was create fear to the surrounding communties that live or die by the influx of tourists.... The parks, to ramp up that fear publicly stated " roads will not get snowplowed in time for the spring opening date" because of the sequester...

So both parks sat back and let the surrounding communties raise hundreds of thousands of dollars and pooled their assets along with the Wyo DOT to get plows and rotary blowers to the park to clear the roads.... A job the Park Service budgeted for several years in advance and had the money in the BANK to fund said project....

So.. what happened... The locals pitched in and did the plowing while EVERYONE of the federal workers sat on their ass and drew a paycheck, not ONE of them were laid off.....

The roads got cleared, the tourists are here spending money and the feds are manning the main gates collecting entry fees to put in their kitty... And they did it without having to spend their funds....... Fast forward to OSH.....

The feds collect taxes off EVERY gallon of 100LL and JetA to run the national airspace system.... They now see a opportunity to strongarm a world wide known aviation event and now they are crying poor mouth.. :mad:.


Personally, if I were Jack Pelton I would say to the FAA. Go ahead and man the OSH tower with the normal staff you obligated to for normal activity .. One or two controllers or whatever the level is... And then hire some temp , private controllers from Serco or other companies... For the 7-10 days Airventure goes on, ALL aviation fuel taxes collected to Basler and Orion for fuel sales on the field go straight to the EAA.. Not a penny goes to the feds... and I mean not a friggin penny... Let's see how long the FAA cries poor mouth then when they realize they are out a few million in tax revenue ...:yes:;):rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
Dean V. is obviously one of the wealthy pilots the administration continues to target with user fees and who doesn't mind being told what he can and can't afford by a bunch of bureaucrats whose only job is to spend other people's money.
 
Twenty-eight senators have sent a letter to the head of the FAA strongly suggesting they drop the fee for AirVenture. They stated that money was already budgeted to cover that event and due to the scope of the event and it's impact on the aviation industry, the 'user fee' would not be approriate. I sure would like to know who these 28 senators are. It might have an impact on my next vote.
 
MickYoumans said:
Twenty-eight senators have sent a letter to the head of the FAA strongly suggesting they drop the fee for AirVenture. They stated that money was already budgeted to cover that event and due to the scope of the event and it's impact on the aviation industry, the 'user fee' would not be approriate. I sure would like to know who these 28 senators are. It might have an impact on my next vote.
Click to expand...

I'lls cut it to 27 for you.

1. Inhofe.
 
I see both sides of this.

On one hand, EAA makes a lot of money on the event. I don't see that it has to be the taxpayer's responsibility to foot the bill for facilitating the event.

On the other hand, one of the FAA's mandates is to improve aviation safety. Managing traffic at the busiest airport in the world seems to fall within that mandate. In addition, the FAA provides briefings, seminars, etc. at the event to further the FAA's mission, so you'd think the FAA would want to facilitate the event in the interest of pilot safety.

Either way you see the argument, there is no doubt that turning this into a last minute crisis is an act of bad faith by the FAA. If the FAA wants to implement what is effectively a user fee against OSH or SNF, it just isn't right to drop that turd in the punchbowl at the last minute. Both events should have been given the courtesy of a year or more of notification to get their ducks in a row to better address such a big change from the status quo.
 
Dean V said:
:)
Glad you posted the letter, at least I don't have to write my state's senators complaining about them wasting my tax money paying for airshow controllers.
Click to expand...
I think you're confusing the event with the traffic. The controllers are there to handle the traffic, not the event. At times throughout the year, traffic increases due to events that make people take to the skys in great numbers, yet I don't see any added taxes being applied to them. Yet.

Let's use Thanksgiving as an example. Lots of people travel via airplane to visit relatives. By your logic, funding that the FAA gets through fuel and other sources based on use isn't enough any more. By your logic, they should also be adding taxes on things like turkey sales and cranberries. And maybe a cut of the advertising revenue from the Thanksgiving day parade. You seem to be in denial that increased air traffic is paid for by increased air traffic! That's the deal we made, but you know that already. What you want to ignore though, is that now they're twisting our shirt collar in their fist and saying "Now we got a new deal, see?"

I like what Bartmc said "Some folks have bought into the brainwashing that our current financial situation is the result of the taxpayers not paying enough." You seem to think that we aren't paying enough taxes to pay for everything that the government wants to pay for. But if you think that giving them more is going to stop them from asking for more you're out of your mind.:mad2:
 
murphey said:
EAA never has [covered expenses & housing]. Nor does the EAA explicitly request the FAA do all that it does during AirVenture. That's something that the FAA did on its own (of course a gradual evolution over 50 years). The big problem EAA has with this is that it amounts to blackmail. Two months before the event--when the budgets have long been finalized--they say "if you want your waiver you have to pay us $475,000." They did the same thing with Sun 'N Fun ($150,000 I believe) and unfortunately SnF caved in and paid, setting a bad precedent


Note: I heard rumors that SnF bill was over $200K but can't verify it.
Click to expand...

All true, except that the bill sent to SnF was closer to $300,000.

The FAA wants to charge an event I'm involved with for our temporary tower this year as well. We won't be paying. We're a 501(c)3 organization with the mission of providing scholarships for aviation education (something we've been doing for over 40 years) and paying a 30k-40k bill from the FAA would put us out of business. They're demanding payment in advance, BTW.

Since our event is held at an airport that is normally non-towered, the decision as to how to handle this is easy-- it's just going to be a really busy non-towered airport for three days. We fervently hope that all goes well, of course, but if it doesn't, our conscience is clear: we have no more responsibility to provide air traffic services at that airport than the FBO or the airport restaurant does. The FAA knows that safety would be enhanced by operating a temporary tower there for those three days-- if they choose to abdicate that responsibility, it's on them, not us.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the FAA is going to start charging the airports where there's increased traffic due to NASCAR, or the SuperBowl, or.....
 
The road to user fees is a slippery one indeed. Once they've charged the EAA with them, what's to stop them from charging the rest of us?
 
murphey said:
I wonder if the FAA is going to start charging the airports where there's increased traffic due to NASCAR, or the SuperBowl, or.....
Click to expand...

They already do, for many events-- NASCAR, the PGA, etc., have been cheerfully signing reimbursable agreements for years. What's changed is that, historically, the FAA hasn't imposed those fees on aviation events.

This whole "reimbursable agreement" strategy started many years ago when NASCAR was unhappy with the long IFR delays their owners and crews endured at small airports not prepared to deal with the large amounts of IFR traffic a NASCAR race generates. They wanted additional ATC services at these airports to reduce the delays, and the local FAA facilities (which provide logistics and staff for such operations) didn't have the budget to provided those additional services. NASCAR didn't blink an eye, they just said, "it's worth it to us, how much does it cost, and where do you want us to send the check?"

NASCAR uses additional ATC services primarily to expedite traffic, so many feel it's fair to charge them extra for the special handling. Airventure, OTOH, uses additional ATC services primarily to enhance safety. Apparently, the FAA now feels it's equally fair to charge extra for that.
 
Dean V said:
The FAA is not chosing to abdicate, just like your 501(c)3, they don't have the funding to provide the service.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. I worked for the FAA for 25 years, and there are many, many places they could cut their budget with zero impact on users or safety. However, those cuts would not be as visible to the public, and thus not have the political impact desired.

The attitude the FAA has toward spending is well illustrated by an experience I had a couple of months before the (then) new tower was scheduled to open at O'Hare. I walked into work at the old tower and was surprised to find the entire office area on the first floor in complete disarray-- a massive remodeling project had begun.

One of the main office dweebs was walking by, and I said, "Geez, Bob, we're going to be moving into the new tower in just a couple of months, why are we remodeling now?"

He replied, "Oh, this was already budgeted." To him, that explained everything. The fact that it was a shameful waste of taxpayer money to renovate a facility that we'd soon be abandoning meant nothing. All that mattered was that he use his allocated funds, otherwise they might not give him as much next year.
 
flibmeister said:
.....
He replied, "Oh, this was already budgeted." To him, that explained everything. The fact that it was a shameful waste of taxpayer money to renovate a facility that we'd soon be abandoning meant nothing. All that mattered was that he use his allocated funds, otherwise they might not give him as much next year.
Click to expand...

And people wonder how the U.S.A is 17 and soon to be 20+ TRILLION dollars in debt...:mad::mad::sad:
 
flibmeister said:
They already do, for many events-- NASCAR, the PGA, etc., have been cheerfully signing reimbursable agreements for years. What's changed is that, historically, the FAA hasn't imposed those fees on aviation events.

This whole "reimbursable agreement" strategy started many years ago when NASCAR was unhappy with the long IFR delays their owners and crews endured at small airports not prepared to deal with the large amounts of IFR traffic a NASCAR race generates. They wanted additional ATC services at these airports to reduce the delays, and the local FAA facilities (which provide logistics and staff for such operations) didn't have the budget to provided those additional services. NASCAR didn't blink an eye, they just said, "it's worth it to us, how much does it cost, and where do you want us to send the check?"

NASCAR uses additional ATC services primarily to expedite traffic, so many feel it's fair to charge them extra for the special handling. Airventure, OTOH, uses additional ATC services primarily to enhance safety. Apparently, the FAA now feels it's equally fair to charge extra for that.
Click to expand...

I did not know that -- learn something new every day.

Wonder what the Reno Air Races will be charged.
 
Dean V said:
.......The economy goes south, the local govt don't have the funds to continue the free service and the event organizer either has pay the city or cancel their event.
Click to expand...


Yeah.. BUT...... The economy goes south, the private sector lays off people to stay viable and save money........Maybe you can explain to us why the guv added a few million jobs during the time the economy went south ????:dunno::dunno::mad::mad2:........
 
Dean V said:
Which is why the furlough notices are going out as you speak..

....
Click to expand...

You apparently are a guv worker...:rolleyes:..

The economy went south in late 2009.. That was almost 4 years ago.... The shear stupidy of the guv is stunningly obvious...:yesnod:
 
Dean V said:
You used to work for FAA and observed an event of wasteful spending.
Click to expand...

It would be impossible to work for the FAA (or probably any other government agency) and only observe "an" event of wasteful spending-- the number of such events that occur is rather astounding. And, call me crazy, but I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that a quarter-century inside the agency might provide some insight into their spending habits.

The point of the story was that the FAA management personnel deciding what costs to cut all think like my buddy Bob did. They aren't making those decisions based on how they can make the most of their newly limited resources and get the best bang for the taxpayer buck-- if they were, they'd recognize that providing adequate air traffic control services at what is (for that week) the busiest airport in the world is about as basic as it gets when it comes to fulfilling their core mission.
 
Dean V said:
You used to work for FAA and observed an event of wasteful spending. So because you did, you can comment on the fiscal condition of the agency today?
The FAA states they have to cut $328,000,000.00 from their spending between now and September (4 months).

What the FAA has charged Sun/Fun and what they propose charging Airventure ($775,000) is about 2.5% of what they need to cut.
Click to expand...

775,000/328,000,000 = 0.24%

Even with the $500K proposed for Airventure, and unknown estimated for Reno, let's call it roughly $2.3 Million. That's still only 0.7% of the budget cut.

But thank you for playing.

This stuff happens all the time at the local govt level. An event is accustomed to free govt service for police, ems, sanitation, ect. The economy goes south, the local govt don't have the funds to continue the free service and the event organizer either has pay the city or cancel their event.

Unfortunately, Americans aren't accustomed to this on the national level because congress routinely borrowed the money needed and went on with life.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top