Backlash against Vector Airport Systems

[Justin Schmidt]

On 12/27/2024 at 9:30 PM, toto said:

As @hubcap mentioned, they were ruled unconstitutional in Missouri. I haven’t seen new legislation yet, but they’ll need to do something to address the constitutional problems with taking pictures of a license plate. No idea whether there is a public/private partnership involved. 

Ref: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=90869

Ohio said they can be legal as long as a cop is on the other end

[M20F]

On 12/26/2024 at 8:40 PM, jetdriven said:

Can you explain further how it’s gonna alleviate the hanger shortage in this country?

The same way the lottery fixed education funding?

[Pinecone]

20 hours ago, Justin Schmidt said:

Ohio said they can be legal as long as a cop is on the other end

I think it was Louisiana that was the same way.  They had to refund a BUNCH of money when someone found out that fines were send out, signed by a cop that was on vacation.

 

[cliffy]

Taking pictures of license plates on a public road is Constitutionally legal as approved

by the US Supreme Court. Just like our flights with ADSB  are public information

No right of privacy out in public. 

[PeteMc]

8 hours ago, cliffy said:

Taking pictures of license plates on a public road is Constitutionally legal as approved

by the US Supreme Court.

Kind of like people that are SCREAMING on their phones as they walk down the street...  Then claim it was a "private" conversation.   

 

[amillet]

Just received an invoice in the mail from Vector Planepass.  I flew to Port Angeles (KCLM) and left it at the FBO to diagnose and fix ALT FLD circuit breaker tripping issue. They are billing me for $10 daily parking fee even though the airplane is parked inside the FBO hanger.  I emailed a dispute. Invoice is for “parking”.  Airport fee schedule says “tie down”.

Vector Planepass Invoice .pdf

[dkkim73]

45 minutes ago, amillet said:

Just received an invoice in the mail from Vector Planepass.  I flew to Port Angeles (KCLM) and left it at the FBO to diagnose and fix ALT FLD circuit breaker tripping issue. They are billing me for $10 daily parking fee even though the airplane is parked inside the FBO hanger.  I emailed a dispute. Invoice is for “parking”.  Airport fee schedule says “tie down”.

Vector Planepass Invoice .pdf 4.02 MB · 0 downloads

What is aggravating about this is the burden placed in your lap to do the legwork to fix the data quality issue that their low-cost automated money-printing process created. 

I wonder if you could go through an administrative process to make complaints through the airport, municipality, or by bringing in some state advocacy. WA has its bureaucracy, but is pretty responsive at some levels (e.g. sometimes county) and if you frame it as a "little guy getting pushed around by corporate bottom-feeders" it might resonate with some people. Out in that part of the state it's heads or tails what political card you draw with any given public servant. I wonder if you can make a legal argument that the government is responsible for reckless or harassing billing practices via their contractor. 

[Bolter]

51 minutes ago, amillet said:

Just received an invoice in the mail from Vector Planepass.  I flew to Port Angeles (KCLM) and left it at the FBO to diagnose and fix ALT FLD circuit breaker tripping issue. They are billing me for $10 daily parking fee even though the airplane is parked inside the FBO hanger.  I emailed a dispute. Invoice is for “parking”.  Airport fee schedule says “tie down”.

Vector Planepass Invoice .pdf 4.02 MB · 1 download

Regardless of the words used, I see this as double billing when your plane is in the hangar of the private business that is already paying for that work space.  

[amillet]

Already received reply

Hello,
Thank you for contacting Vector regarding the disputed charges billed on INVOICE 772951.
A credit request has been submitted for the disputed charges and is in process. We will notify you once the process is complete. If you receive an Account Statement indicating past due charges from this invoice, please review the Adjustments Pending Approval section of the Statement showing your request is still in process.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you.

At least that division of customer service seems competent.

[PeteMc]

1 hour ago, amillet said:

Just received an invoice in the mail from Vector Planepass.  I flew to Port Angeles (KCLM) and left it at the FBO to diagnose and fix ALT FLD circuit breaker tripping issue. They are billing me for $10 daily parking fee even though the airplane is parked inside the FBO hanger.  I emailed a dispute. Invoice is for “parking”.  Airport fee schedule says “tie down”.

The airport is owned by the Port of Port Angeles.  So as @dkkim73 suggested, you could fire off a politely worded "are you aware of the issues with your vendor" type letter.  There are also email links on their website for the Port Commission members. 

You could also try submitting a bill for your time.  You never know. 

 

[Paul Thomas]

I wonder if it violates the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act... it doesn't seem right for a company to attempt to collect payment in these type of situations. The burden shouldn't be on us to even respond to bad billing like that.

[PeteMc]

21 minutes ago, Paul Thomas said:

The burden shouldn't be on us to even respond to bad billing like that.

Well, the burden will always be on you since they think you owe. 

Now if it is an occasional error, fine.  But if it can be proven that they have frequent incorrect charges going out and it is costing individuals a lot of time, can we bill them for our time?  

Any Attorneys here that want to (unofficially and not giving legal advice) want to weigh in with their opinion?  If they can bill me *just*because* can't I do the same if I actually used billable time to deal with the bad invoice???

 

ADDED: And I know Vector or someone like them, with the current and future technology, will always be around.  It makes good business sense for Airports that do charge landing fees.  And even with the efforts in court to stop the use of ADS-B, the cat's out of the bat.  And I'm also guessing most of their clients already charged landing fees. 

Edited Friday at 07:42 PM by PeteMc

[Ragsf15e]

2 hours ago, PeteMc said:

The airport is owned by the Port of Port Angeles.  So as @dkkim73 suggested, you could fire off a politely worded "are you aware of the issues with your vendor" type letter.  There are also email links on their website for the Port Commission members. 

You could also try submitting a bill for your time.  You never know. 

 

I think @dkkim73 said it more eloquently, but here’s my take (and I frequent KCLM in the summer)…. It’s not my job to have to dispute bills that are junk.  There are clearly many way to park/land at Kclm that should not result in a bill (friends hangar, rented hangar, FS taxi back, etc).  Why is it suddenly my responsibility to police the company billing me with the possibility of a lein on my airplane if I (OMG) choose to ignore a bill that’s completely bogus?!  I should send them a bill for my time spent in researching and replying to their trash billing.  At least Id have a reasonable justification for my bill.  Think they’d pay?

[EricJ]

9 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

I think @dkkim73 said it more eloquently, but here’s my take (and I frequent KCLM in the summer)…. It’s not my job to have to dispute bills that are junk.  There are clearly many way to park/land at Kclm that should not result in a bill (friends hangar, rented hangar, FS taxi back, etc).  Why is it suddenly my responsibility to police the company billing me with the possibility of a lein on my airplane if I (OMG) choose to ignore a bill that’s completely bogus?!  I should send them a bill for my time spent in researching and replying to their trash billing.  At least Id have a reasonable justification for my bill.  Think they’d pay?

One way to push back on that is to make it an issue for the customer, e.g., complain to the FBO or the airport manager.    If it becomes a hassle for them to deal with mis-billings, then they'll put pressure on the billing company from a customer perspective, which has more weight than us.

Complaining to the regulator, the FAA, may have weight as well.    The AOPA is already aware, so I don't know how much more that helps or not.

[dkkim73]

17 minutes ago, EricJ said:

One way to push back on that is to make it an issue for the customer, e.g., complain to the FBO or the airport manager.    If it becomes a hassle for them to deal with mis-billings, then they'll put pressure on the billing company from a customer perspective, which has more weight than us.

 

Good point. A smaller jurisdiction like that might, as I conjectured, be reasonable. If they're not, you could potentially make it not worth their time by involving them personally (e.g. small claims court?) or something like that I suppose... If you were actually a member of the community you would obviously have some avenues (city governance, friend-of-a-friend, etc). 

 

[dkkim73]

1 hour ago, PeteMc said:

Well, the burden will always be on you since they think you owe. 

 

"They" don't "think" you owe anything. Their business model, possibly executed by some unknown dude (or dudar-ji overseas) on Upwork, generated a bill that, on the average, will net some %age of collections. They get a cut of that, so as long as it's not painful to them, they don't even know, much less care, if they're occasionally (significantly?) wrong. 

Same rationale as insurance companies kicking back pre-auth on medical diagnostics that are indicated. They bet that a significant fraction won't take the time to fight it (thinking here of real examples of non-urgent but important medical evaluations). 

Of course you can come up with justifications for  this kind of crappy automation, that also helps them. Poor starving airport authority.  As for "who should pay" (the simple refrain): If you think the net benefit of this airport accrues to solely to those of us who might fly in a few times in a lifetime, divided by the # of us, and not to other fixed entities (say the nearby cities), I would suggest your're perhaps not thinking broadly enough about the various economic dependencies.  

(Yes, I know you're not making all the counter-arguments, you just brought up an entry point for discussion, so the intent is general and conversational here, not attacking your worldview). 

Ethics and principles aside, there are also politics. WA state revenue models (esp. with the burgeoning cost of social "help") are obviously strained... so easier to nickel and dime transient cessnas than try to solve the bigger tax base issues in Clallam County. Want a real annoyance? Try to commute by WA State Ferries.... Talk about days of greater glory. And the Olympic Peninsula isn't exactly wealthy as a whole to start with. You would think there are enough wealthy retirees there that they wouldn't fleece passers-by to prop up infrastructure. 

D

[PeteMc]

3 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

It’s not my job to have to dispute bills that are junk.

Yes, I agree it shouldn't be...  But you still have the bill floating around out there if you don't do anything about it.  And I get that they they send out erroneous bills, but it still has your name on it.  So the Ostridge option isn't the best one.   

So if you're going to shoot off an email to get it cleared up, why not add a CC to those at the airport that actually have some power over Vector.  If we complain about a bill, hopefully they credit the account.  If their client starts asking them about all these bogus bills, they may do a little investment to cut down on the errors and keep their clients happy. 

 

[PeteMc]

2 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

"They" don't "think" you owe anything. Their business model, possibly executed by some unknown dude (or dudar-ji overseas) on Upwork, generated a bill that, on the average, will net some %age of collections. They get a cut of that, so as long as it's not painful to them, they don't even know, much less care, if they're occasionally (significantly?) wrong. 

Not sure where you're going with all that.  Even though it may be an error in their tracking, they DO think you owe them money.  Some guy overseas isn't pulling N# off the registry and mailing them out.  It's a pretty simple process and the issue is the computer thinks you landed.  No more, no less. 

  

[Fly Boomer]

8 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

and if you frame it as a "little guy getting pushed around by corporate bottom-feeders" it might resonate with some people.

If you flew in to get your Mooney worked on, you have already stipulated that you are not a "little guy".

[Justin Schmidt]

8 hours ago, dkkim73 said:

What is aggravating about this is the burden placed in your lap to do the legwork to fix the data quality issue that their low-cost automated money-printing process created. 

I wonder if you could go through an administrative process to make complaints through the airport, municipality, or by bringing in some state advocacy. WA has its bureaucracy, but is pretty responsive at some levels (e.g. sometimes county) and if you frame it as a "little guy getting pushed around by corporate bottom-feeders" it might resonate with some people. Out in that part of the state it's heads or tails what political card you draw with any given public servant. I wonder if you can make a legal argument that the government is responsible for reckless or harassing billing practices via their contractor. 

Assuming the politicians, administrative state aren't the bottom feeders, which they are.

[Justin Schmidt]

23 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

If you flew in to get your Mooney worked on, you have already stipulated that you are not a "little guy".

The fact I own a Mooney makes me a little guy, else I would have a jet.

If I didn't own a Mooney I wouldn't be a little guy, even though I'm 5'5

[Justin Schmidt]

4 hours ago, EricJ said:

Complaining to the regulator, the FAA

The FAA doesn't give a flying fuck...ha see what I did there

[Fly Boomer]

4 minutes ago, Justin Schmidt said:

The fact I own a Mooney makes me a little guy, else I would have a jet.

If I didn't own a Mooney I wouldn't be a little guy, even though I'm 5'5

Try selling that "little guy" thing to 99.9999 percent of Americans.  If you own an airplane -- any airplane -- you are "rich".  Despite all protestations to the contrary.

[Justin Schmidt]

Just now, Fly Boomer said:

Try selling that "little guy" thing to 99.9999 percent of Americans.  If you own an airplane -- any airplane -- you are "rich".  Despite all protestations to the contrary.

It was a joke. I understand the fact I don't worry about money puts me ahead of most people

[Fly Boomer]

Just now, Justin Schmidt said:

It was a joke. I understand the fact I don't worry about money puts me ahead of most people

Got it.