Should The FAA Be Reimbursed For Oshkosh Expenses?

Should EAA Reimburse FAA For ATC Costs During Air Venture at Oshkosh?

  • Yes, the additional cost should be paid by EAA.

    Votes: 34 33.0%

  • No, the fees are already paid through fuel taxes and federal taxes.

    Votes: 65 63.1%

  • What is Oshkosh?

    Votes: 4 3.9%
  • Total voters
    103
No doubt about it. The vendors should charge more for their products as well, since they spend all that gas money to haul their stuff all the way to Wisconsin.

Spectators should be charged for watching the airshow too, but one-eyed people should get a discount.


Geico266 said:
The FAA is proposing EAA reimburse them for the cost of having extra controllers come to OSH during air venture, including meals and hotels.

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articl...ure-atc-user-fees-troubling.html?CMP=News:S6T

What say you?
Click to expand...
 
If they get to pick/choose how to increase revenue, then it's only fair that the public gets to see the details of their budgets, and get to pick/choose on how we can increase productivity, lessen costs, get rid of dead-weight mgmt and poorly producing employees. We'll have a hoot checking into perks, cars, travel, seminars and time-off.
Maybe we should start with the department that designed the new card/licenses.
 
Last edited:
Certainly, so long as all the other air control centers (towers, radar facilities and the like) are charged similarly. That said, we begin to go down the fairly slippery slope of user fees. If the EAA has to pay for air traffic control why shouldn't they pass that cost onto the aircraft flying in.

Personally, I think it BS. Providing air traffic control is their bloody job and is paid for by our bloody taxes.
 
The FAA budget is not secret. Go look. It's on their website.

You have a voice in its appropriation through your congresscritter. That's what they exist for. Of course, if you're a nutjob, you'll get ignored, just like anywhere else. So speak for actual facts, rather than supposition.
 
If I run a moneymaking event that demands extra resources from the government should I pay for those extra services?
 
How about the FAA STAY THE HELL HOME and EAA fund the tower operation themselves with contractors hired specifically for that event?

Hint: It would cost a small fraction what the FAA claims it costs.
 
Like making airlines pay for JFK, LGA, and all the other towers?


ClimbnSink said:
If I run a moneymaking event that demands extra resources from the government should I pay for those extra services?
Click to expand...
 
Who is going to pay for the temporary towers at NASCAR races?
While this is a money making event so are a lot of other events that require additional government personel. I have to think Oshkosh is a fraction of 1% of the FAA's controller budget, a very small fraction, like something with a decimal and a couple zeros before the first number. :dunno:
This is more grandstanding, just to show they are trying to live within their budgets. Oshkosk has been going on for as long as I can remember and the cost associated with it should be part of the FAA budget every year, it's not a surprise or a one time deal. It's kind of like Christmas for aviation, you know it comes every year, you plan and save for it, run around like hell, *****, moan, you're glad it's over when it's over and you can't wait until next year. :D
 
As with all ATC services, who is the user? Is it, or is it not, a public good? Is the pilot the user? Or the passengers? How about all the elementary schools over which we fly every day? If it's not a public good, why not just turn it all off? Or, why don't we just pull the CBs on our transponders and radios? Whose to blame then if metal rain starts landing on homes across the nation? Why does ATC exist, if not for public safety?

Here's the end game of user fees:
OPERATOR: "911, what is your emergency?"
CITIZEN: "There's a gang of thugs trying to break down my door."
OPERATOR: "I see from your account that you are a bronze level emergency services customer. As you know, your service level agreement guarantees a patrol response within 20 minutes. As you are a longtime subscriber, you are eligible for a discounted upgrade to gold account status which would guarantee a patrol response within 5 minutes with no additional charge for canine or SWAT. For a mere $5 more per month, you would be eligible for platinum that would also result in dispatch of AirOne and two additional patrol units with field supervisor."
CITIZEN: "Lady, if a patrol unit does not show up within the next 2 minutes I'm going have to defend my home and family with my Remington 870 12-guage."
OPERATOR: "Sir, you do realize that as a bronze level customer you would be liable for crime scene investigation costs and any biohazard cleanup costs associated with the use of your firearm. You could however opt for an upgrade to silver or gold and those fees would be waved. Platinum service would also cover medical examiner and disposal fees for the remains of any perpetrators associated with the incident. We already have your credit card on file so all I need from you for upgrade to silver, gold or platinum service, is verification of your account number and PIN or your personal security question answer."
 
Actually being a bronze level customer is better then what we have now, where the police have zero duty to protect you(yes the courts have said this.)
 
N747JB said:
Who is going to pay for the temporary towers at NASCAR races?
Click to expand...

The same folks that have been paying for 'em for years-- NASCAR. The PGA pays for towers that support their events, too.

This "reimbursable agreement" stuff isn't new; what's new is that the FAA is not making exceptions for aviation events, as has long been the practice.
 
EAA should be given the option of having their own employees or contractors man the tower instead. The FAA is a wasteful (read: Government) organization, so there's no way their cost is anywhere near what any sane organization would cost to do it themselves.
 
Shouldn't we in turn ask for a refund of all the fuel tax that we paid to fly our planes across the country to this event?

Threefingeredjack said:
Absolutely the EAA should pay. It is an extra cost. Anyone who thinks otherwise yet decries "entitlements" is a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
 
What is the purpose of the FAA?

Promote aviation....... Seems like Oshkosh is doing just that.

So we already pay for it. Why do I pay taxes if every time an agency showes up they want money?
 
The FAA exists to serve aviation. They are funded to provide a public good. If there is a known event that will tax their capabilities, they need to staff for it, budget for it, provide the service and go home happy.
 
I think the "promote" language as stricken from the mandate some years ago. At the time they said promotion and regulation were incompatible goals and that one of them had to go. So I guess we're now considered as just another bunch of self-promoters.

n20junkie said:
What is the purpose of the FAA?

Promote aviation....... Seems like Oshkosh is doing just that.

So we already pay for it. Why do I pay taxes if every time an agency showes up they want money?
Click to expand...
 
ClimbnSink said:
If I run a moneymaking event that demands extra resources from the government should I pay for those extra services?
Click to expand...

What about the extra tax revenue from fuel sales to aircraft going to AirVenture? If EAA is to pay directly for those extra services shouldn't AirVenture bound aircraft be exempt from the tax?
 
How about we make the users of entitlements pay too!
 
Yes, they should be reimbursed. God forbid they actually use the taxes they collect to actually provide a service instead of hiring another administrator.
 
The next thing you know, CBP will want to be reimbursed for the expense of flying a King Air full of tan-jump-suits to detain you every time you refuel.
 
flibmeister said:
The same folks that have been paying for 'em for years-- NASCAR. The PGA pays for towers that support their events, too.

This "reimbursable agreement" stuff isn't new; what's new is that the FAA is not making exceptions for aviation events, as has long been the practice.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware of that, thanks.
 
N747JB said:
I wasn't aware of that, thanks.
Click to expand...

I looked it up. Apparently in 2011 it cost $12,000 for a temporary tower operating for two days during a race - payable in advance.

The county provided the structure, 12k was for the staff.
 
Yes, because this is not a normal day to day service. If I run a carnival I have to pay for the extra police, fire and ems on scene.
 
Yes, the FAA absolutely should be reimbursed.

They should also be paid for the air we all breath. After all, they regulate 'air'-space. And don't forget gravity. Every time you use gravity a payment should be made to the FAA. Without gravity there would be no atmosphere and ergo, no 'air'.

So, any time you breath or use gravity the FAA should be paid.



Oh yeah, no atmosphere means your blood would boil, so...any time your blood doesn't boil in the USA you should pay the FAA.
 
roncachamp said:
What about the extra tax revenue from fuel sales to aircraft going to AirVenture? If EAA is to pay directly for those extra services shouldn't AirVenture bound aircraft be exempt from the tax?
Click to expand...
Drove to the lake burned a tank and a half worth of gas in my truck and paid tolls too. Dammit I was double taxed, let's git our muskets and shoot some redcoats. Concert venues pay for police traffic and security(sure I'm sure some of them have dirty deals where the city picks up the tab) Oshkosh shouldn't be any different.
 
I pay about 3.00 per hour of flight time in fuel taxes and most of my flights I don't use any services.
 
dell30rb said:
I looked it up. Apparently in 2011 it cost $12,000 for a temporary tower operating for two days during a race - payable in advance.

The county provided the structure, 12k was for the staff.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.... For a 4 person crew to man the tower for 2 days... That is 3 grand per person, or 1500 per day , per controller..:eek:....... Someone is getting =ucked without getting kissed..:mad::mad2::mad2::mad2::(
 
Geico266 said:
I fall into this camp. :yes:

EAA should pony up.
Click to expand...

If the Huskers play a big game on any given saturday and draw a packed stadium ( which I suspect they would) should UN pay the town or the state for the extra police to direct traffic? Same would go for any large sports event or gathering.
 
AdamZ said:
If the Huskers play a big game on any given saturday and draw a packed stadium ( which I suspect they would) should UN pay the town or the state for the extra police to direct traffic? Same would go for any large sports event or gathering.
Click to expand...

Many do (unless they have their own PD)
 
Florida Cracker said:
How about the FAA STAY THE HELL HOME and EAA fund the tower operation themselves with contractors hired specifically for that event?

Hint: It would cost a small fraction what the FAA claims it costs.
Click to expand...

I could have written these exact words. If the FAA wants money to do their job, well - don't do the job. Just stay away. We'll figure it out on our own.
 
docmirror said:
I could have written these exact words. If the FAA wants money to do their job, well - don't do the job. Just stay away. We'll figure it out on our own.
Click to expand...

Especially if the same guys can take vacation time and come work the event as contractors :yes:
 
AdamZ said:
If the Huskers play a big game on any given saturday and draw a packed stadium ( which I suspect they would) should UN pay the town or the state for the extra police to direct traffic? Same would go for any large sports event or gathering.
Click to expand...

Why don't they pay for the extra police with the extra sales and room tax revenue provided by the big crowd drawn by that big game?
 
dell30rb said:
I looked it up. Apparently in 2011 it cost $12,000 for a temporary tower operating for two days during a race - payable in advance.

The county provided the structure, 12k was for the staff.
Click to expand...

That's actually a low figure, compared to some. Events such as the Arlington and Copperstate Fly-In's, which use arrival procedures derived from the Fisk procedure that has been standard for decades at Oshkosh (and thus more controllers, due to the arrival controller function), are being quoted figures around $10,000-- per day.

It's not hard to see where those types of numbers come from: controller hours are charged at overtime rates, under the theory that a controller on TDY at a special event must be replaced at his home facility by a controller on OT. The controller average hourly rate is in the vicinity of $60 per hour, so the OT rate would be around $90 per hour, or $720 per 8 hour shift. Add on the travel and per diem charges, and the daily cost for each controller will approach $1000.

8 controllers per day would be $8000, then you have to add on the 25% administrative fee the feds are charging. Presto, $10000 for every day the tower is open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top