USFA considering forcing members to use THS

[Mr.MightyMouse]

Originally Posted by edew

They'll just require that you book your flights through the Olympic Desk and fly United with their special "USFA" rate (I used to try using the Olympic Desk, but I couldn't for the life of me get a rate that was even remotely close to cheaper than what I could find by a few phone calls; this was way before the use of the internet for airline bookings. I gave up on the Olympic Desk after the terrible service and lack of options and uncertainty in the itinerary at around 1994.)

You can get a waiver if you can show your before and after odometer readings or some number from a pedometer. Fly a different airline? Better be related to that pilot or something.

true'dat.
United to Nationals online was $299 at the right time, Olympic rate never went below $423 on the phone, when I got a bit upset and asked for the promised discount - I got some drekk about $150 adjustment fee.

[Mr.MightyMouse]

$5 to an f.netter who lives within 100 miles of Des Moines , no one form Des Monies needs to apply, and whose address I can put on a waiver.

[Grasshopper]

[Mr.MightyMouse]

If twitter can be censored, why not a place of residence?


http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/2009...ll-510-a-word/

[Capt. Slo-mo]

All right, we all know Mr. Loomis has some serious health issues that impact his communication. Let's cut him some slack, and reserve The Snark for the grammar hypocrites.

[Mr.MightyMouse]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

All right, we all know Mr. Loomis has some serious health issues that impact his communication. Let's cut him some slack, and reserve The Snark for the grammar hypocrites.

'K - I dunno Mr.Loomis - but will accept the aforementioned.

[CorinneG]

Originally Posted by occasionalfencer

At the very least, even if everything goes well, it would be a huge amount more work for the office. If we pay for their time, where is our savings?

Keep in mind, things might have changed since I left the national office, but I don't think so.

Yes, you pay for the office staff's time, 40 hours a week. That doesn't change if I worked 80 hours, I'm still paid for 40. The last year I was there, I averaged between 60 and 70 hours a week.

There's your savings.

Corinne

[flechewounds]

Originally Posted by CorinneG

Keep in mind, things might have changed since I left the national office, but I don't think so.

Yes, you pay for the office staff's time, 40 hours a week. That doesn't change if I worked 80 hours, I'm still paid for 40. The last year I was there, I averaged between 60 and 70 hours a week.

There's your savings.

Corinne

Hey - there's an idea.... work the staff like referees (12 hour days) and pay them like referees (12 months late)... a recipe for financial success!

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: THE COMMENT YOU JUST READ WAS INTENDED TO BE SATIRE. ANY RESEMBLANCE TO ACTUAL FACTS IS WHOLLY AND TOTALLY COINCIDENTAL

[Empty Wallet]

I said in an earlier thread that this type of requirement would be illegal in my country. It is in deemed as anti-competitive behaviour (yes, I do live in one of those socialist havens with health care and everything).

The description of the waivers, the form, and the Captain's phone call would all contravene privacy laws.

In-laws in the USA are involved in youth volleyball (HS coaches) and I asked them about experiences there. They said:

We took our annual drive to Richmond VA for the boys' east coast championships over Memorial Day weekend-late May. The parents of the players were pleased as could be to get a room for just under $100 per night. I did priceline and got us a four-star Sheraton just outside the city for $45 a night times four. I guess my point is that for US, not having a player-kid, we're not interested in those supposedly "favorable" rates that the association gets.

Whenever they book rooms for the players, the hotel must have free full breakfasts, but still, I can so beat that price that it's no contest.

Personally, I can fully understand that the individual club must have all the kids staying at the same hotel, but I don't know why that club should be limited in where they choose.

A quote from one of the regional VB important people: "Yes, we were forced to do this for the JO's. In our case (*** Club), we wound up with a better hotel with better rates and many comped rooms because we stayed a distance from the playing site. However, I know many teams did not have as good an experience."

I have been searching some of the VB discussions -- it is not a popular policy. Reports included increased costs, lack of ability to store luggage after early check outs, bedrooms for the kids spread across floors (what are the legal ramifications if you are the supposed to be looking after them for the parents and something goes amiss?).

One of the JO issues that was very clear was that teams that qualified early got the choice of the more economical rooms. Teams that qualified later because of scheduling had to pay for what they were allocated.

[flechewounds]

Originally Posted by Empty Wallet

I said in an earlier thread that this type of requirement would be illegal in my country. It is in deemed as anti-competitive behaviour (yes, I do live in one of those socialist havens with health care and everything).

The description of the waivers, the form, and the Captain's phone call would all contravene privacy laws.

In-laws in the USA are involved in youth volleyball (HS coaches) and I asked them about experiences there. They said:

We took our annual drive to Richmond VA for the boys' east coast championships over Memorial Day weekend-late May. The parents of the players were pleased as could be to get a room for just under $100 per night. I did priceline and got us a four-star Sheraton just outside the city for $45 a night times four. I guess my point is that for US, not having a player-kid, we're not interested in those supposedly "favorable" rates that the association gets.

Whenever they book rooms for the players, the hotel must have free full breakfasts, but still, I can so beat that price that it's no contest.

Personally, I can fully understand that the individual club must have all the kids staying at the same hotel, but I don't know why that club should be limited in where they choose.

A quote from one of the regional VB important people: "Yes, we were forced to do this for the JO's. In our case (*** Club), we wound up with a better hotel with better rates and many comped rooms because we stayed a distance from the playing site. However, I know many teams did not have as good an experience."

I have been searching some of the VB discussions -- it is not a popular policy. Reports included increased costs, lack of ability to store luggage after early check outs, bedrooms for the kids spread across floors (what are the legal ramifications if you are the supposed to be looking after them for the parents and something goes amiss?).

One of the JO issues that was very clear was that teams that qualified early got the choice of the more economical rooms. Teams that qualified later because of scheduling had to pay for what they were allocated.

But wait... that isn't the USFA program - so it's just conjecture... after all, the USFA ED, etc., has show a much more nuanced understanding of the concerns of fencers and their families than those rogues over at Volleyball (is Volleyball really a sport?)...

[passata_sotto]

Originally Posted by teacup

Will we be forced to fly United?

I know a fencer whose father flys for Delta who will not be flying with United.

I actually have so much to say about this but am so overwhelmed that I am going to bed and hope that it was all a nightmare.

[Grasshopper]

Is it a black card to light a soft roll on fire and throw it?

[Durando]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

Is it a black card to light a soft roll on fire and throw it?

That tears it. I'm not reading any more USFA-oriented threads until Grasshopper posts.

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

All right, we all know Mr. Loomis has some serious health issues that impact his communication. Let's cut him some slack, and reserve The Snark for the grammar hypocrites.

Seconded.

My other comment is that I'm glad I live and fence in the European Union.

[occasionalfencer]

Originally Posted by Jvanhousen

My opinion is that if you don’t see the potential for bureaucratic snafu here, you don’t have much of an imagination.
I have ample opportunities to butt heads w/ hotel management over a plethora of issues on my own, thank you very much, without adding another layer of authority to deal with.

But my main concern is actually the response Cadvet received from the USFA Vice President in response to his parody post of ‘Last Call’ :

<<Your not being funny by posting on Fencing.net and stating it as something that took place at the BOD Meeting which is absolutely false. You have sunk to a new low. >>

Firstly, it was insulting (and puzzling) that he thought ANY member that actually read it would not clearly recognize it as satire. But secondly, when he accuses Gary (A section chair) of having ‘sunk to a new low’, which came off as a cheap personal attack, was he speaking on behalf of the USFA? The signature appears to support that notion.


“This conversation has become boring!”
Dieter from the Sprockets

Please remember that he is one of only two board members who has responded at all. Try to be nice. We want to encourage at least the semblance of dialogue, in the hopes that it will develop into real dialogue. HOPE!

[occasionalfencer]

Originally Posted by CorinneG

Keep in mind, things might have changed since I left the national office, but I don't think so.

Yes, you pay for the office staff's time, 40 hours a week. That doesn't change if I worked 80 hours, I'm still paid for 40. The last year I was there, I averaged between 60 and 70 hours a week.

There's your savings.

Corinne

I just have this very personal weird notion that overworking the staff is a cost to everyone. If they are good people, overworking them is unjust. Also, there is a physical limit. If the office depends on a regular basis on overworking people, there is nothing left for a real emergency. I see this program has the potential to create real emergencies frequently. Then depending on overworked people can turn an emergency into a disaster.

[brtech]

First of all, mostly this won't affect me, because these days when I come to a USFA event, I am armoring and USFA arranges my room. However, I have spent several years "campaigning" with my daughters and know the process well.

I nearly always ended up using Priceline if I was choosing the hotel; it worked out cheaper that way. I would always try to make THS work, because I really did want to help out the USFA, but it was nearly always much cheaper to use Priceline. Not a little cheaper, MUCH cheaper. Based on the numbers I see for Des Moines, the rate at comparable property on Priceline would usually be in the $75 range, sometimes less for the mid and upper range properties. That's comparable to what I normally bid ($71 or so, figuring the extra service charge). If it was only $12 more to book through THS, I might not be so concerned, but we're talking $30-40 difference. On holiday weekends, you usually can't do quite as well.

We're getting the impression that they will price match vs Priceline, but that can't possibly work: to find out the price to beat on Priceline, you have to commit to the booking, and it's uncancelable. So, even if I was able to get THS to find a comparable room at the same price, I couldn't get out of my reservation via Priceline. Same is true at Hotwire.

So, how would THS meet or beat Priceline?

[hello?]

I also find it funny that when something is finally (belatedly) posted on the USFA website, Christine starts off by saying that the USFA membership has asked for more information about the Stay and Play program. (A bit of an understatement.) Most of us wouldn't even have known such a thing existed if we had not heard about it on Fencing.net!!! Yes, I know there was a Congress meeting where it was brought up (that's how the person who originally posted the information heard about it), but most of the membership was not there (I, for one, arrived on the 6th and left on the 13th -- 7 nights at the Gaylord were enough for me!) and others had fencers competing at the time of the meeting....I don't know Kurt but like Christine very much and have total respect for her and the other people involved with running these events. However, I think the way this program was 'announced' to the membership only helped fuel indignation. Oh well...I will email Christine and voice my concern that the way the program works will involve a huge violation of privacy. How are they going to 'verify' who you are staying with? And what about the people who only find out who they are 'crashing' with when they get there?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by occasionalfencer

Please remember that he is one of only two board members who has responded at all.

Off the top of my head I can name at least four Board members who have participated in the threads.

-B

[hello?]

Originally Posted by silver2e

Both links go to the waiver document. How does one find the overview page?

Makes you feel pretty secure about how all the cross-referencing, friend-or-family verifications, etc. will be handled!