AOPA Renewal??

[flyingmoose]

So I was sitting here with a letter from AOPA that says its time for me to renew. I really have mixed emotions on if I should send it in. On one hand it really is the only group that well help what is left of the industry, but on the other I don't know how much good they are doing. Maybe its because I can't see it, so..........

If you are a member, are you renewing?

Give me some reasons to renew?

And some reasons not to renew?

Just curious.

 

[Jim Logajan]

If you are a member, are you renewing?

Not sure anymore. I just made the mistake of actually reading the AOPA bylaws. Read below under reasons not to renew.

Give me some reasons to renew?

Magazine is so-so; somewhat underwhelming but not terrible (by my standards, anyway.) Their website has a bunch of useful info and services related to airplanes, airplane values, airfields, and so on. Annual subscription fee isn't too bad relative to what you get, which does include government advocacy.

And some reasons not to renew?

The directors and executives have set executive salaries too high relative to the value they currently deliver for members. If GA really was something they felt strongly about, they wouldn't need large salaries to stay on. A large salary is probably prima facie evidence that the executive has a genuine desire to help GA. AOPA is not a business and the standards used for executive selection for businesses need not apply to such an organization. This is because the service rendered by the organization does not operate in a competitive marketplace.

They also suffer the common problem of executive in-breeding at the top, particularly on the board of trustees, because the by-laws were set up to favor trustee selected lineage:

"Any vacancy on the Board of Trustees shall be filled by the appointment of a new Trustee by a majority of the Trustees in office, effective until a replacement is elected.
[...]
The Board of Trustees shall designate a Nominating Committee of not less than two members. No person shall be a candidate for Trustee who has not been approved and recommended by the Nominating Committee."

From: http://www.aopa.org/info/governance/bylaws.html

The bylaws make it impossible for the general membership individually or collectively to unseat any of the trustees who they do not want unseated. The AOPA is therefore not a member driven organization, but rather a trustee driven organization.

A drive to change the bylaws to move more authority over trustees to the so-called "members" might be amusing (in a sad sort of way) to watch. Not sure if that has been tried during its existence.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Most of the drop-outs have no idea what really happens in a lobby group. Nor will the lobby ever disclose everything they are doing and with whom, for all the reasons that should be obvious to anybody who thinks about it more than 5 minutes.

In physics, whenever anyone makes an argument for the existence of something whose properties are such that it can't be measured or tested, it is considered a null concept of no value. Your claims fall into the same realm. You need to give specific examples where you know or believe AOPA lobbiest made a difference in legislation.

They're just looking for an excuse to cheap out.

No other reason could possibly exist, eh?

 

[Jim Logajan]

To whom in Washington did Einstein find it necessary to present his argument in hopes of finding congressional support for his theories?

Stick around a few years and get back to me with the other reasons. Nothing has changed for the 35 years I've been a member.

You seem unable to give specific examples of legislation that passed due to the efforts of AOPA or were thwarted due to their efforts.

You probably think you are doing AOPA a favor defending them this way, but since I already am a member of AOPA, I know you are accomplishing the opposite of what you intend. I expect evidence to support assertions. Vague handwaving and patronization is something I expect of scammers and the lazy.

 

[Jim Logajan]

How many who post on this board are declining the salary and benefits afforded them by their employment? Are you turning some back?

Oh good lord yes I have declined salary and benefits. Shucks, I even deliberately quit a high paying job in favor of a lower paying one because it fit the style of life I desired. Now that I think of, I chose that crazy downgrade several times in my life.

It isn't a bad way to argue your case, just not terribly universal.

Who sets executive and employee comp at AOPA? Do you think Fuller does it?

AOPA doesn't represent that great an outlay to me to rate a great deal of my time, but I always enjoy learning new things, so I have rather quickly reviewed the bios of the board of trustees and Fuller, as well as some of AOPAs financial statements.

My summary of Fuller's compensation: A bunch of financially successful people are on the board of trustees and are used to high compensation. There is scant evidence to indicate any have spent more than a tiny portion of their lives living anywhere at or below middle class income or asset levels. Fuller was trained as a politician, has spent time in and around the halls of power for many decades (.e.g. Reagan and Bush administrations,) and has basically been marketing the influence and insider knowledge thus gained. This includes stints at other places that bought the service of his insider access and knowledge. The AOPA is but one of those places. His other skills do not stand out and while not the proverbial dime a dozen, not worthy of more than a couple hundred k a year compensation. The only thing AOPA should be paying him the big bucks for is that influence and knowledge. If it isn't proving effective he should be dumped as soon as a possible.

Who are your top three choices to take his job? What are their chops?

Given the way the bylaws are written, the question is entirely theoretical. The group of financially successful people making up the board of trustees isn't seriously going to be taking outside suggestions.

 

[Jim Logajan]

For those who believe AOPA is an advocate for general aviation aircraft owners, please explain and defend their long held support for ADS-B and NextGen:

"And ADS-B brings so many benefits to GA pilots that AOPA has been a long-term supporter of the technology." Quoted from:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070118ads-b.html

Since a Mode-C transponder is technologically much simpler than an ADS-B transponder with a GPS - even without a cockpit display - it isn't clear what drugs they were on when they wrote "Our goal will be to bring the advantages of ADS-B to the cockpit 10 years from now at no greater cost than today's Mode C transponder—with weather and traffic displays as added bonuses."

Quoted from: http://www.aopa.org/prez/prespos/2006/pp0601.html

This is the single most costly mandate to general aviation in decades, and not only was the AOPA not fighting to limit or change it, it was (according to them) actively promoting increases in NextGen operational costs and complexity by suggesting delivery of extra services beyond those envisioned by the FAA.

So explain again why an alternative advocacy organization shouldn't be formed that is more in tune with the needs of the middle class aviator?

 

[Jim Logajan]

Still, it's the only national organization we have that can speak for us in Washington.

That is quite an insult (or monumental AOPA hubris) to other national aviation groups. Consider:

It was a petition by the United States Ultralight Association (http://www.usua.org/SportPilot/Archive/SportPilotReg.htm) that eventually lead the FAA to develop the Light Sport (LSA) regulations. During that development process the FAA also contacted the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), United States Hang Gliding Association (USHGA), and Aero Sports Connection (ASC). The FAA mentions those organizations in early deliberations, but not the AOPA.

And the fact is that Washington is growing more powerful everyday, and Washington is full of people would gladly outlaw general aviation just to gain a talking point on tonight's news.

If DC is full of these anti-GA publicity-seeking people, you should have no problem naming them. Hard to tell what threat they really are if they remain unnamed. Doubly hard for anyone else to do anything if you and the AOPA hold a secret list of these people.

Many more in DC would impose a la carte user fees that would effectively kill GA for all but the very wealthy.

First, I count only the Administration as proposing user fees; and that is a flat $100/flight, but other than listing some exemptions, the proposal never addressed many details. A majority in the current and past congresses have been against such fees. They've been against such fees for a long time - thanks to more than just the efforts of AOPA.

Second, the Canadians switched to user fees about 16 years ago. You need to ask Canadian pilots and aircraft owners whether they think GA is now dead in CA, and whether user fees had anything to do with it. One possible Canadian aviation forum to ask: http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/index.php

It is one thing to say AOPA should be supported for its services or even its alleged advocacy, but it is quite another to actively ignore or squash on the efforts of other organizations in order to promote AOPA. The reality is that a dollar spent on AOPA is a dollar not spent on another group that might be more deserving.