Impressions of the USFA

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by DHCJr
United is the 'Official' Airline of the USOC and one of their contracts is we fly with United, unless they can justify why not. And that why not is for every flight, they would have to justify.

So you're saying that this is REQUIRED by the USOC? For every Olympic sport? EVERY Olympic sport which gets money from the USOC uses United exclusively?

Second you do not see the benefit, but the USFA does. I am one of those whose way has been paid for by the USFA. One of the items I have received is how much the USFA has paid for that ticket. There has been at least one where it did not show a charge only the Federal Taxes.

I'm not following you. What exactly did you receive which could not have been rendered by Southwest, Air Blue, Am West, American...

I asked about that and the USFA gets free or discounted tickets for every so many flights.

Well, that could make a difference, depending on how many "every so many" was. Is it really likely to overcome the substantial difference between United fares and those of "discount" carriers? The difference might be $100 or more per ticket...and the USFA flies a lot of people ( often without advance purchases, I understand, which can jack them up still more ).

I would say they could probably get cheaper tickets elswhere, but then they would loose a lot more money from not being associated with the USOC.

United is the only way they are affiliated with the USOC? Without that single tie they get no funding at all?

So how much would they stand to lose? And would it be offset by using cheaper carriers? That is the bottom line.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
United is the only way they are affiliated with the USOC? Without that single tie they get no funding at all?

So how much would they stand to lose? And would it be offset by using cheaper carriers? That is the bottom line.

not THE tie, but it probably is a condition of the contract. you don't uphold your end of the contract, no funding.

In addition, I guarrentee that the USOC funding is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the amount the USFA would save hunting for discount airfares, especially given the man-hours it would add to an already overworked staff.

-m

[DHCJr]

Originally posted by Inquartata
So you're saying that this is REQUIRED by the USOC? For every Olympic sport? EVERY Olympic sport which gets money from the USOC uses United exclusively?


Yes, unless they can prove for that ticket, why they can't use it. It might be United doesn't go there or a substantial savings, but it is for each and every ticket that they do not use United.


I'm not following you. What exactly did you receive which could not have been rendered by Southwest, Air Blue, Am West, American...

A free ticket, no charge to the USFA. How many free tickets would any of the others give without a contract? Yes they are cheaper for each individual flight, but are they when you consider the tickets given away for free? I don't know, because I have never looked at the budget.



Well, that could make a difference, depending on how many "every so many" was. Is it really likely to overcome the substantial difference between United fares and those of "discount" carriers? The difference might be $100 or more per ticket...and the USFA flies a lot of people ( often without advance purchases, I understand, which can jack them up still more ).

I don't know this for sure, but I believe they do not raise the rates for Official travel where it is without advance notice and I don't believe they charge for modified tickets as the tournament went long. I could be wrong, but I believe that is the case.


United is the only way they are affiliated with the USOC? Without that single tie they get no funding at all?

I believe Epee Mike said both of these better than I could.

So how much would they stand to lose? And would it be offset by using cheaper carriers? That is the bottom line.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by DHCJr
Yes, unless they can prove for that ticket, why they can't use it. It might be United doesn't go there or a substantial savings, but it is for each and every ticket that they do not use United.

OK. But then, let me just say, wow!

How many free tickets would any of the others give without a contract? Yes they are cheaper for each individual flight, but are they when you consider the tickets given away for free? I don't know, because I have never looked at the budget.

Well, I went to Orlando on a free ticket, on Southwest. I get them periodically, too---it's called a frequent-flyer award. I imagine that's not too different from what United is offering the USFA...and I would think that even the cheaper carriers have more attractive programs for large customers than for individuals.

I don't know this for sure, but I believe they do not raise the rates for Official travel where it is without advance notice and I don't believe they charge for modified tickets as the tournament went long. I could be wrong, but I believe that is the case.

I recall a conversation I had with a friend who refs the NACs, and he seemed to be saying they did---though we weren't discussing it specifically, the subject just sort of came up in passing and I didn't pay close attention. Guess I should ask him...


Anyway, if indeed it's a take-it-or-leave-it-all condition from the USOC, it's appalling. Toe the line, 'cause if you forget to dot a single i we will defund you completely? Pretty darned tyrannical---and so perhaps it's the USOC which is getting the rewards of sweetheart deals like the United one, instead of the USFA...sounds a bit like organized crime!









[/b][/quote]

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Well, I went to Orlando on a free ticket, on Southwest. I get them periodically, too---it's called a frequent-flyer award. I imagine that's not too different from what United is offering the USFA...and I would think that even the cheaper carriers have more attractive programs for large customers than for individuals.

You can't POSSIBLY think that the deal the USFA has is similar to your frequent flyer plan! Inq, it occurs to me that I don't know what you do for a living. Have you ever been involved in a bidding proccess??? The USOC put out an RFP (Request for Proposal), gathered the proposals, and chose the best one. The Reason that United has a blanket contract with them is that theirs was the best proposal. So, if, as you say, those other airlines could do better, why didn't they?

I recall a conversation I had with a friend who refs the NACs, and he seemed to be saying they did---though we weren't discussing it specifically, the subject just sort of came up in passing and I didn't pay close attention. Guess I should ask him...


Anyway, if indeed it's a take-it-or-leave-it-all condition from the USOC, it's appalling. Toe the line, 'cause if you forget to dot a single i we will defund you completely? Pretty darned tyrannical---and so perhaps it's the USOC which is getting the rewards of sweetheart deals like the United one, instead of the USFA...sounds a bit like organized crime!

Again, I would point out that these deals are made because the USFA doesn't have much clout. The USOC is not being tyrranical, but rather making deals which are better (on the whole, not necessarily each individual ticket) for the organizations it represents. group bargaining power is a wonderful thing. Also, you must remember that one problem the USFA DOES have is that they are not usually the ones booking the airfare. many times, refs book their own and get reimbursement. Thus, the deals the USFA has don't help much.

-m

[Chris]

Originally posted by Slavheart
Thanks, Epeemike, for clarifying whom the USFA really serves.

So, can anyone point me to any other fencing organizations in the U.S.?

Slavheart

Slavheart, you SHOULD probably have received your membership quicker, and the Board of Directors probably SHOULD seriously consider a way of assuring the permanency of the website, as it HAS become the public face of the organization.

HOWEVER, that being said,
It's only reasonable to expect the National Organization to be concerned with the performance of the 'National Team' (i.e. - Top level US Fencers), who else is going to do that?

The national organization should and DOES do a lot of things to support the recreational fencer, (I can go into that later, if you want), however, at this moment, you are, essentially, a local fencer, and you should be looking to a local organization. i.e. the Minnesota Division of the USFA, and/or a local club. (although it's tough for any one person to know everything that's going on, even when they try, and have have had some time to do so) They are the local representatives of the USFA who coordinate , and sanction USFA events in your local area should be able to answer a lot of your questions.


Hope that helps!

Have fun!

Fence!

[edew]

Originally posted by epeemike81
You can't POSSIBLY think that the deal the USFA has is similar to your frequent flyer plan! Inq, it occurs to me that I don't know what you do for a living. Have you ever been involved in a bidding proccess??? The USOC put out an RFP (Request for Proposal), gathered the proposals, and chose the best one. The Reason that United has a blanket contract with them is that theirs was the best proposal. So, if, as you say, those other airlines could do better, why didn't they?



Again, I would point out that these deals are made because the USFA doesn't have much clout. The USOC is not being tyrranical, but rather making deals which are better (on the whole, not necessarily each individual ticket) for the organizations it represents. group bargaining power is a wonderful thing. Also, you must remember that one problem the USFA DOES have is that they are not usually the ones booking the airfare. many times, refs book their own and get reimbursement. Thus, the deals the USFA has don't help much.

-m

I make it my duty and noble effort to buy my own airplane ticket because I can usually get them at $100-150 cheaper than the competing United fare. I think saving USFA $100 is better for them in the long run than to have 50 people charging the extra $100 just to get a free flight (for every 50 or so paid flights through the Olympic desk).

As for the proposal, the proposal may actually be very good for the USOC's bottom line, but not necessarily very good for any of the NGBs' bottom line(s). Perhaps United also offers to be the official "airline" sponsor for the next so-many Olympics. So there's lots of money to USOC via sponsorship, but not much benefits for the NGBs who might never get to see any of that sponsorship money.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
You can't POSSIBLY think that the deal the USFA has is similar to your frequent flyer plan!

For every X tickets I buy, I get a free one. For every X tickets the USFA buys, they get a free one. Where is the difference?

The USOC put out an RFP (Request for Proposal), gathered the proposals, and chose the best one. The Reason that United has a blanket contract with them is that theirs was the best proposal. So, if, as you say, those other airlines could do better, why didn't they?

I can think of several possible reasons: they don't fly everywhere, their schedules aren't the same, etc. And then too, if I may dare say it, you must know as well as I that a company or organization seeking "competitive" bids has all sorts of ways to ensure that one particular bidder gets selected. Common as mud in the construction industry, for one. And remember the scandal over the way various providers for the Olympics were chosen? So how do we know the process was simon-pure in the USOC-United outcome? ( Asked the inveterate cynic. )

Again, I would point out that these deals are made because the USFA doesn't have much clout.

And that's it in a nutshell, I guess.

The USOC is not being tyrranical, but rather making deals which are better (on the whole, not necessarily each individual ticket) for the organizations it represents.

You mean, on average? That is, really good for some of its organizations ( presumably the powerful, moneyed ones like gymnastics, basketball, etc ) and much less good for the less influential ones like the USFA? That I could see. It just doesn't look like such a good deal from where I'm sitting, when just running a search on Orbitz or Sidestep in advance of each NAC might save 2/3 per ticket...and if not, United is still the default.

It does seem unduly peremptory ( to me ) for the USOC to say in effect to the USFA, "We have made OUR best deal, you may NOT save money on your own, or we'll cut you off at the knees".

group bargaining power is a wonderful thing.

Not to mention a costly one in some respects...

Also, you must remember that one problem the USFA DOES have is that they are not usually the ones booking the airfare. many times, refs book their own and get reimbursement. Thus, the deals the USFA has don't help much.

-m

I didn't know it worked that way. Another flaw in the process, I think. Tell people you'll reimburse them whatever the cost and the incentive to economize, seek out lower fares, schedule in advance and so forth pretty much vanishes. Were it me I'd just find whatever was most convenient, maybe whichever gave me the best chance of getting upped to first class ( another mark against the discount carriers---no first class ) and forget about it. Not the most cost efficient way to go about such things---which was my initial point: monies are spent unnecessarily.

[Mo]

There seem to be some strong opinions about how the USFA books airline tickets.
Just curious, are these opinions based on conjecture or do you know for sure what you are talking about?

[Inquartata]

Oh, I don't know about strong opinions...strongly defended ones, certainly!

Actually, the whole ticketing thing is just one of our usual thread drifts. Some of us just enjoy a good argument. ( "No, no, this is abuse! You want next door!" )

I am not sure exactly how the USFA goes about the workaday arrangements. I'd love to hear from someone who does.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
I can think of several possible reasons: they don't fly everywhere, their schedules aren't the same, etc. And then too, if I may dare say it, you must know as well as I that a company or organization seeking "competitive" bids has all sorts of ways to ensure that one particular bidder gets selected. Common as mud in the construction industry, for one. And remember the scandal over the way various providers for the Olympics were chosen? So how do we know the process was simon-pure in the USOC-United outcome? ( Asked the inveterate cynic. )

whatever the reason, the point is that the discount airlines can't provide a better blanket contract than United. So, it all goes back to the point that the manhour costs of searching for the cheapest fares is much larger than the benefit derived from those fares. the bottom line is that without a blanket contract, the USFA staff would spend a significant amount of resources researching tickets.

Also, you must remember that we don't know what the USFA is paying for tickets on United. your argument is predicated on the fact that they are paying the same as you for united tickets (retail - USFA Member discount). The existence of a blanket contract makes it quite likely that they are paying significantly less than that.

-m

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by edew
I make it my duty and noble effort to buy my own airplane ticket because I can usually get them at $100-150 cheaper than the competing United fare. I think saving USFA $100 is better for them in the long run than to have 50 people charging the extra $100 just to get a free flight (for every 50 or so paid flights through the Olympic desk).

But the problem, Eric, is that you don't KNOW that you are saving them $100. you are assuming that they would pay as much for a United flight if they booked it as you would if you booked it. That is VERY specious reasoning, given the existence of a blanket contract which probably gives the USFA better deals on flights for official use. the discount given to USFA members is a courtesy, and most likely not nearly as extensive as the rate breaks given the the USFA itself. thus, though you may think you are saving the USFA money, you may in fact not be.

-m

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
the manhour costs of searching for the cheapest fares is much larger than the benefit derived from those fares. the bottom line is that without a blanket contract, the USFA staff would spend a significant amount of resources researching tickets.

I don't see how this follows. This enormous workload would seem to me to consist of typing the criteria in Orbitz or a similar search engine and then ordering the tickets. Each person could do the first part himself or herself, excepting perhaps the people flying out of Colorado, whom the USFA could do en masse relatively easily, I'd think. If it is as you say and a lot of them book their own anyway and get reimbursed, the workload drops to what? Mailing out the checks?

Also, you must remember that we don't know what the USFA is paying for tickets on United. your argument is predicated on the fact that they are paying the same as you for united tickets (retail - USFA Member discount). The existence of a blanket contract makes it quite likely that they are paying significantly less than that.

Well, that's true. I don't know what they pay, and they may indeed get some discount...luckily we aren't arguing exact numbers, just general principles. On general principles, lower fares are better, no?

Whatever they pay, I imagine it's still way above corresponding fares from discount carriers, though.

[edew]

Originally posted by Inquartata
For every X tickets I buy, I get a free one. For every X tickets the USFA buys, they get a free one. Where is the difference?

One difference could be what that value of X is for you versus for USFA.

I can think of several possible reasons: they don't fly everywhere, their schedules aren't the same, etc. And then too, if I may dare say it, you must know as well as I that a company or organization seeking "competitive" bids has all sorts of ways to ensure that one particular bidder gets selected. Common as mud in the construction industry, for one. And remember the scandal over the way various providers for the Olympics were chosen? So how do we know the process was simon-pure in the USOC-United outcome? ( Asked the inveterate cynic. )

I believe I made that assertion in my previous post: the plan with United may benefit the USOC directly, but may not benefit the NGBs directly. But since a lot of the money going to the NGBs is from the USOC, the USOC isn't going to directly hamper the NGBs while reaping a good sponsorship deal. United also won't play such games. There's no benefit to them to participate in a sponsorship deal where the recipient can be shown to be skimming off the top.

I didn't know it worked that way. Another flaw in the process, I think. Tell people you'll reimburse them whatever the cost and the incentive to economize, seek out lower fares, schedule in advance and so forth pretty much vanishes. Were it me I'd just find whatever was most convenient, maybe whichever gave me the best chance of getting upped to first class ( another mark against the discount carriers---no first class ) and forget about it. Not the most cost efficient way to go about such things---which was my initial point: monies are spent unnecessarily.

The USFA travel reimbursement form does stipulate how much they will pay back. If it is more than what the Olympic desk could possibly charge, they won't pay you that much more. They also won't pay you more than $400/day for driving, so they're not going to allow you to drive from Ft Worth to Minnesota to officiate, for example.

Also, as much as we might have to take precautions from unscrupulous referees, they (we) generally are very moral and ethical in the dealing with expenses. As I said above, I rather take the cheaper fare for the benefit of the USFA, as well as me, since it comes out of my pocket first.

That said, there are some quirky rules in the travel expense forms, like no public transportation. So, if I park my car at the long-term parking, I get reimbursed. But if I take the train to the airport, I don't. For USFA, it costs more to reimburse me for long-term parking ($60, say), compared to round-trip commuter train ($10).

On the other hand, I don't know of any referee who pads his or her expense form with bogus receipts. I'm not saying that doesn't happen. I'm saying that I don't know of any. All referees I've talked to have been fairly up-and-up. And they're all getting this wonderful $40/day per diem, too.

[edew]

Originally posted by epeemike81
But the problem, Eric, is that you don't KNOW that you are saving them $100. you are assuming that they would pay as much for a United flight if they booked it as you would if you booked it. That is VERY specious reasoning, given the existence of a blanket contract which probably gives the USFA better deals on flights for official use. the discount given to USFA members is a courtesy, and most likely not nearly as extensive as the rate breaks given the the USFA itself. thus, though you may think you are saving the USFA money, you may in fact not be.

-m

USFA, for the most part, does not do the booking for referees and such. The individual referees and such do their own booking. We are giving the Olympic Travel desk 800-number and are asked to use that (say, "Fencing" and some amount of money is funneled to the USFA for future free airfares).

Thus, I DO know that I'm saving the USFA $100 or whatever because I do comparison-shop by first calling the Olympic desk, then going on-line (or doing both). Someone did tell me that the Olympic desk would match fares, but when I asked they didn't seem to do that.

I don't think USFA actually books flights for anyone with the possible exception of someone like Chris Cuddy in the office doing it for Carla and Michael and several other admin people. All the rest of us, bout committee people, referees, armorers, medical staff, whoever else most likely book the flight themselves. It's easier because USFA doesn't know my schedule, doesn't know whether I can take an early morning flight, or a red-eye flight, or that I have to be back by Sunday night instead of Monday.

If I'm going to go to the bother of giving USFA all the itinerary, what's so difficult for me to make that one more step and ask for a fare quote? Better I just talk directly to the Olympic desk and get the information (and possible reservation) than to add in a middleman (the USFA) who could possible mangle the information.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew
One difference could be what that value of X is for you versus for USFA.

Agreed.

You said something in an earlier post, I think, about "every 50 flights" for the United deal. Is that in fact the figure, or did you just pick a number as an example? ( If the former, then the United deal is a lot worse than most frequent-flier programs I've seen. I think it took me about 8 or 9 round trips on Southwest, and it's more on America West, but not that much more. )

I believe I made that assertion in my previous post: the plan with United may benefit the USOC directly, but may not benefit the NGBs directly.

We're agreeing here, Eric. I know it's an unfamiliar phenomenon, but go with it!

But since a lot of the money going to the NGBs is from the USOC, the USOC isn't going to directly hamper the NGBs while reaping a good sponsorship deal.

Not all of them, certainly. I would imagine that some of them---the big, influential, profitable ones---benefit, and some others, too small and weak to be able to twist any arms, may indeed get a worse deal than they might have made on their own, but be unable to get out of it lest the USOC yank their funding. It's in the nature of averages that some will do better, and some worse, in any such arrangement. I'm skeptical that ALL of the NGBs benefit.

United also won't play such games. There's no benefit to them to participate in a sponsorship deal where the recipient can be shown to be skimming off the top.

Unless it's sufficiently profitable for them, of course.

Also, as much as we might have to take precautions from unscrupulous referees, they (we) generally are very moral and ethical in the dealing with expenses. As I said above, I rather take the cheaper fare for the benefit of the USFA, as well as me, since it comes out of my pocket first.

It's a relief to hear that about the caps and the way reimbursements are handled. And, I wasn't trying to give the impression that I thought lots of officials were trying to game the system to turn a buck...only that they might well not put a lot of effort into minimizing costs if there were no particular incentive for them to do so.