At Dear Ol' AVL Airport, Asheville, NC

In order to be a flight instructor you need 5,000 feet hangar space, 1,500
feet office space, plus two airplanes, one of which must be IFR certified.
This is the official rule, in writing and enforced by the airport authority.
What this effectively does is exclude any competition for the one flight
school on the airport.

There is also another loopy rule which excludes A&P's from working on
aircraft at this airport, unless for the monopoly on the field.

Check to see if there are any conspiracies in restraint of trade or
competition at your airport. You may have a bizarre rule like this giving
someone or a company a monopoly on your airport.

These illegal, unAmerican rules founded on greed will shortly be dissolved
or litigated, you can be sure of it.

" jls" wrote in message .. .
In order to be a flight instructor you need 5,000 feet hangar space, 1,500
feet office space, plus two airplanes, one of which must be IFR certified.
This is the official rule, in writing and enforced by the airport authority.
What this effectively does is exclude any competition for the one flight
school on the airport.

There is also another loopy rule which excludes A&P's from working on
aircraft at this airport, unless for the monopoly on the field.

Check to see if there are any conspiracies in restraint of trade or
competition at your airport. You may have a bizarre rule like this giving
someone or a company a monopoly on your airport.

These illegal, unAmerican rules founded on greed will shortly be dissolved
or litigated, you can be sure of it.



************************************************** ******************************

We had the same kind of situation at a county airport in San
Bernardino county, Calif. We did some research and found that if the
airport got any federal funding they could not allow a monopoly on the
airport.The federal funding would stop and refunds were in order.
We flooded the airport commission with our members and others and won
out over the county stooges.
That was about 1980.

Bob Olds


************************************************** ******************************

"Bob Olds" wrote in message
om...


************************************************** **************************
****

We had the same kind of situation at a county airport in San
Bernardino county, Calif. We did some research and found that if the
airport got any federal funding they could not allow a monopoly on the
airport.The federal funding would stop and refunds were in order.
We flooded the airport commission with our members and others and won
out over the county stooges.
That was about 1980.

Bob Olds

Thanks, Bob, for that encouraging report.

Did you ever consider the insurance the airport operator carries and the
restrictions their policy might have? If an incident occurs at that airport
or to a plane which departed from that airport you can bet, in todays
litigious society, that a suit will be filed naming the airport operators.
The flight school there, especially in this post 911 world, has an enormous
premium to pay. As a free lance CFI what insurance coverage do you have
to protect the airport operator at AVL from the outcome of your teaching
actions? Most likely none! So you want to make money at the expense of
others and you call THEM unamerican?
The same goes for A&P's, maintenance shops and fuel concessions. The law-suit
happy world we find ourselves in has made insurance damn near impossible to
afford or even get.
Free lance A&Ps operating on an airport expose the airport operator to
litigation and don't contribute a penny to their insurance. When the
feces hits the fan the free-lancers run for the hills and the fixed
base businesses are stuck holding the bag. ALV's requirement that
a business maintain a reasonable presence on their grounds is not
uncommon nor is the incidence of free lancers who protest about it.

There is no difference to this than an person driving an uninsured car,
getting involved in an accident and then expecting to simply walk away from
their obligation or have the uninsured motorist fund cover their damages.

GaryP

" jls" wrote in message .. .
In order to be a flight instructor you need 5,000 feet hangar space, 1,500
feet office space, plus two airplanes, one of which must be IFR certified.
This is the official rule, in writing and enforced by the airport authority.
What this effectively does is exclude any competition for the one flight
school on the airport.

There is also another loopy rule which excludes A&P's from working on
aircraft at this airport, unless for the monopoly on the field.

Check to see if there are any conspiracies in restraint of trade or
competition at your airport. You may have a bizarre rule like this giving
someone or a company a monopoly on your airport.

These illegal, unAmerican rules founded on greed will shortly be dissolved
or litigated, you can be sure of it.

It seems to me they could require that anyone doing business on their
airport carry an insurance policy to protect the airport from litigation
which makes more sense than requiring huge buildings and expensive
facilities.
Next thing you know they'll prohibit you from flying there from another
airport and doing a few touch and go's just in case you might have an
accident on their airport!
John


GaryP wrote:

Did you ever consider the insurance the airport operator carries and the
restrictions their policy might have? If an incident occurs at that
airport or to a plane which departed from that airport you can bet, in
todays litigious society, that a suit will be filed naming the airport
operators. The flight school there, especially in this post 911 world, has
an enormous
premium to pay. As a free lance CFI what insurance coverage do you have
to protect the airport operator at AVL from the outcome of your teaching
actions?

On 14 Aug 2004 07:22:48 -0700, (GaryP) wrote:

Did you ever consider the insurance the airport operator carries and the
restrictions their policy might have?

Good question, but a better one is who is the airport operator. If
they are a private company and have not accepted public money to
operate their airport, fine. They can exclude anybody they wish.
Otherwise, their insurance concerns are nobody's problem but their
own.

If an incident occurs at that airport
or to a plane which departed from that airport you can bet, in todays
litigious society, that a suit will be filed naming the airport operators.

So what? Anybody can be named in any lawsuit at any time for no
reason at all. The legal system is broken, and we all know that. Why
anybody should be responsible to protect anybody but themselves from
that broken system is beyond me.

The flight school there, especially in this post 911 world, has an enormous
premium to pay. As a free lance CFI what insurance coverage do you have
to protect the airport operator at AVL from the outcome of your teaching
actions? Most likely none! So you want to make money at the expense of
others and you call THEM unamerican?

Because, if it is a public airport then he is not making money at
anybody's expense but his own and the public entity that funds the
airport, no different from the established operator. The established
operator is not involved and the free lance CFI has no obligation to
them whatsoever.

The same goes for A&P's, maintenance shops and fuel concessions. The law-suit
happy world we find ourselves in has made insurance damn near impossible to
afford or even get.
Free lance A&Ps operating on an airport expose the airport operator to
litigation and don't contribute a penny to their insurance. When the
feces hits the fan the free-lancers run for the hills and the fixed
base businesses are stuck holding the bag.

Guess again, asshole. If an aircraft owner based on the local public
field chooses to hire me as an A&P to work on their airplane, and the
"established operators" start sniffing around and telling me to go
away, I can assure you that running for the hills is the last thing
which will occur. The situation would get very ugly, very quickly.

ALV's requirement that
a business maintain a reasonable presence on their grounds is not
uncommon nor is the incidence of free lancers who protest about it.

It is cronyism, plain and simple. It is nothing more than an
anti-competitive conspiracy by those who feel that the world owes them
a living by virtue of their having been there first.

There is no difference to this than an person driving an uninsured car,
getting involved in an accident and then expecting to simply walk away from
their obligation or have the uninsured motorist fund cover their damages.

There is a huge difference. Under your rules, the driver would also
have to provide liability coverage to other, uninvolved motorists who
happened to be driving on the same road where the wreck occurred.


================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:40:11 GMT,
(Del Rawlins) wrote:


It is cronyism, plain and simple. It is nothing more than an
anti-competitive conspiracy by those who feel that the world owes them
a living by virtue of their having been there first.

Del Rawlins--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Plain and simple???
Not exactly.

I'm older than dirt.
No question I wuz here first.

The problem with being first so
long ago leaves one crony-less.

It ain't easy extorting a paycheck
under these conditions.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight

"Del Rawlins" wrote in message
...
On 14 Aug 2004 07:22:48 -0700, (GaryP) wrote:

Did you ever consider the insurance the airport operator carries and the
restrictions their policy might have?

Good question, but a better one is who is the airport operator. If
they are a private company and have not accepted public money to
operate their airport, fine. They can exclude anybody they wish.
Otherwise, their insurance concerns are nobody's problem but their
own.


Uh, hello, AVL is a public FAA airport. It is Class C airspace. And
what might THIS from the minutes of AVL airport authority mean to you?---
Accepted AIP-25 FAA Grant in the amount of $5,881,370.00.
Heard the marketing and public relations report.
Heard the airport director's report who gave a briefing of the day by day
occurences (sic) at the airport since the terrorist attack of September 11,
2001.
Approved minutes of the August 20, 2001 monthly meeting and closed session.


If an incident occurs at that airport
or to a plane which departed from that airport you can bet, in todays
litigious society, that a suit will be filed naming the airport
operators.

So what? Anybody can be named in any lawsuit at any time for no
reason at all. The legal system is broken, and we all know that.

You might THINK you know that, but this monopoly issue should have been
litigated long ago, once and for all, while all you shills of corrupt big
business and toadies of the far right show your ignorance.

Why
anybody should be responsible to protect anybody but themselves from
that broken system is beyond me.

Here, ol' Dello seems to advocate the law of the jungle.

The flight school there, especially in this post 911 world, has an
enormous
premium to pay. As a free lance CFI what insurance coverage do you have
to protect the airport operator at AVL from the outcome of your teaching
actions? Most likely none! So you want to make money at the expense of
others and you call THEM unamerican?

Because, if it is a public airport then he is not making money at
anybody's expense but his own and the public entity that funds the
airport, no different from the established operator. The established
operator is not involved and the free lance CFI has no obligation to
them whatsoever.

The same goes for A&P's, maintenance shops and fuel concessions. The
law-suit
happy world we find ourselves in has made insurance damn near impossible
to
afford or even get.
Free lance A&Ps operating on an airport expose the airport operator to
litigation and don't contribute a penny to their insurance. When the
feces hits the fan the free-lancers run for the hills and the fixed
base businesses are stuck holding the bag.

Guess again, asshole. If an aircraft owner based on the local public
field chooses to hire me as an A&P to work on their airplane, and the
"established operators" start sniffing around and telling me to go
away, I can assure you that running for the hills is the last thing
which will occur. The situation would get very ugly, very quickly.

Go, big Dello. Tell 'em, big boy.

ALV's requirement that
a business maintain a reasonable presence on their grounds is not
uncommon nor is the incidence of free lancers who protest about it.

It is cronyism, plain and simple. It is nothing more than an
anti-competitive conspiracy by those who feel that the world owes them
a living by virtue of their having been there first.

There is no difference to this than an person driving an uninsured car,
getting involved in an accident and then expecting to simply walk away
from
their obligation or have the uninsured motorist fund cover their damages.

There is a huge difference. Under your rules, the driver would also
have to provide liability coverage to other, uninvolved motorists who
happened to be driving on the same road where the wreck occurred.


================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

(Del Rawlins) wrote in message ...
Guess again, asshole.

Excuse me! Can't you engage in a discussion without resorting to vulgar
personal attacks. What a class act you are Del.

"Del Rawlins" wrote in message
...

What a brilliant response by the Michael Moore of RAH.

================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

My killfile has grown in the last few days. No surprise, considering the
recent influx of loons.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.736 / Virus Database: 490 - Release Date: 8/10/2004