Money grubbing FBO's

Ray Andraka wrote:

Newps wrote:

It has to get below 1000 and 3? I live out west where an actual 10
mile viz day really sucks. I'm not going anywhere at 1000/3. I'm not
setting off for the midwest if the viz is less than 10 east of the
Missouri, because that means the weather is about to be **** poor.



10mi vis is darn good VFR here in Northeast during the summer. It's not
uncommon to go weeks at a time with vis between 5 and 10 mi.

Too bad for you. 100 mile viz is normal here.

On Mar 27, 8:22 pm, Roger wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 09:31:23 -0700, "xyzzy" wrote:

On Mar 27, 8:00 am, Jon Kraus wrote:
Got a fuel bill from our FBO (KUMP Indianapolis Metro) the other day.
Not only do they charge one of the highest fuel prices around, they also
charge 6% Indiana sales tax on top of the 1% Indianapolis Airport
Authority surcharge (because they can).

When I called to inquire about charging 6% sales tax on the fuel they
just said "that is how we've done it for 20 years and everyone else does
it like that too." I've never had a sales tax added on top of the fuel
price before.

I thought that all the taxes we included in the price of the fuel?
Anyone else ever experience this?

I know at my airport (KTTA in NC) my flying club rents planes wet but

Your club rents planes?

Yeah, it's structured as a nonprofit corporation with the members as
the shareholders. The corporation owns the planes and rents them to
the members.

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 09:54:19 -0500, tom418 wrote:

In addition, if your airport receives fed money, you are allowed to do
maintenance in your tie down, etc. as long as it doesn't violate safety
procedures.

Have you a reference for that? This would be terrific news indeed for a
field where our club has some planes based.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
In addition, if your airport receives fed money, you are allowed to do
maintenance in your tie down, etc. as long as it doesn't violate safety
procedures.

Have you a reference for that? This would be terrific news indeed for a
field where our club has some planes based.

These are part of the standard grant assurances that are agreed to when an
airport accepts funds from the Airport Improvement Program. AOPA has a .pdf
document that covers this :

http://www.aopa.org/asn/airport_compliance.pdf

See page 48 under assurance #22 (Economic Nondiscrimination). It reads in
part :

"It will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates
to prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft
on the airport; from performing any services on its own
aircraft with its own employees (including, but not limited to
maintenance, repair, and fueling) that it may choose to perform."

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200704/1

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:7038669109b67@uwe...
Andrew Gideon wrote:
In addition, if your airport receives fed money, you are allowed to do
maintenance in your tie down, etc. as long as it doesn't violate safety
procedures.

Have you a reference for that? This would be terrific news indeed for a
field where our club has some planes based.

These are part of the standard grant assurances that are agreed to when
an
airport accepts funds from the Airport Improvement Program. AOPA has a
.pdf
document that covers this :

http://www.aopa.org/asn/airport_compliance.pdf

See page 48 under assurance #22 (Economic Nondiscrimination). It reads
in
part :

"It will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates
to prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft
on the airport; from performing any services on its own
aircraft with its own employees (including, but not limited to
maintenance, repair, and fueling) that it may choose to perform."


I wonder if refilling oxygen tanks would come under that provision?

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:54:33 +0000, JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:

"It will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates to
prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the
airport; from performing any services on its own aircraft with its own
employees (including, but not limited to maintenance, repair, and fueling)
that it may choose to perform."

Thanks, but this isn't as helpful as I'd hoped. We don't employ A&P/IAs.
We contract with outside firms for those services. Since the mechanics
are not our employees, this means that they can be excluded by the airport
owner/manager.

Am I missing something?

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 22:54:33 +0000, JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:

"It will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates to
prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the
airport; from performing any services on its own aircraft with its own
employees (including, but not limited to maintenance, repair, and
fueling)
that it may choose to perform."

Thanks, but this isn't as helpful as I'd hoped. We don't employ A&P/IAs.
We contract with outside firms for those services. Since the mechanics
are not our employees, this means that they can be excluded by the airport
owner/manager.

Am I missing something?

"...to prevent any person, ..."

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:46:44 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

"It will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates to
prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the
airport; from performing any services on its own aircraft with its own
employees (including, but not limited to maintenance, repair, and
fueling)
that it may choose to perform."

Thanks, but this isn't as helpful as I'd hoped. We don't employ
A&P/IAs. We contract with outside firms for those services. Since the
mechanics are not our employees, this means that they can be excluded by
the airport owner/manager.

Am I missing something?

"...to prevent any person, ..."

That statement appears to refer to the owner. That is, any person may
have employees performing services on that person's own aircraft. It
doesn't read (to me, anyway) that the airport must permit "any person" to
do the work on any aircraft.

You see this differently? Please, convince me!

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:46:44 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

"It will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates to
prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the
airport; from performing any services on its own aircraft with its own
employees (including, but not limited to maintenance, repair, and
fueling)
that it may choose to perform."

Thanks, but this isn't as helpful as I'd hoped. We don't employ
A&P/IAs. We contract with outside firms for those services. Since the
mechanics are not our employees, this means that they can be excluded by
the airport owner/manager.

Am I missing something?

"...to prevent any person, ..."

That statement appears to refer to the owner. That is, any person may
have employees performing services on that person's own aircraft. It
doesn't read (to me, anyway) that the airport must permit "any person" to
do the work on any aircraft.

You see this differently? Please, convince me!

Q: Who is an "employee" under the law?

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 08:49:46 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

Q: Who is an "employee" under the law?

Which law?

Working in the software business, I'd once upon a time occasion to become
very familiar with section 1706 of the 1986 tax reform act. However...

I'd assume that an "employee" is one that receives a W2. Otherwise -
again, going with my assumption - the person is something other than an
employee. After all, we're required to submit W2s for employees.

Have you some reason to suggest use of a different - and more helpful to
my case grin - definition?

- Andrew