Money grubbing FBO's

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

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
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.

1099.


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



See above.