How can we "encourage" AOPA to do better?

[MountainDude]

I am seeing a continuous degradation of small plane GA in the USA ("small plane" refers to the piston-powered planes with up to 6 seats). This includes everything from closing scenic flight companies to closing entire airports, and everything in between (lack of new hangars, unnecessary airport bureaucracy, unnecessary FAA regs...). It also includes some big gaps in promoting aviation, even though AOPA has a lot of PR about it (but does not offer basic information to pilots that can easily be generated and maintained).

While many pilots think that AOPA is representing us, I am convinced they could be doing a lot more. That is why I switched to EAA and no longer support AOPA as a member (though I would love to).
The purpose of the poll is to figure out what we, as a community, think of AOPA's efforts.

Beyond the poll, here is my proposal:
- AOPA members create a document that outlines short- and long-term goals for AOPA.
- We require AOPA to put out an annual membership report that very specifically describes:
1. what they accomplished (not what they tried and what they said) towards these goals
2. what they accomplished (again, not what they tried or what they said) towards improving, or at least preventing further degradation, of the small plane GA

If enough members support this, we may have leverage to improve AOPA ops and have them actually do more for GA.
Please note: this effort is not about presenting problems (we already know them all); it's about coming up with solutions.

 

[dmspilot]

I once wrote to AOPA and suggested that sweepstakes weren't the best use of AOPA's time and money. I was told that the money was donated and that the sweepstakes fulfilled a need to educate members on aircraft ownership.

 

[Racerx]

I once wrote to AOPA and suggested that sweepstakes weren't the best use of AOPA's time and money. I was told that the money was donated and that the sweepstakes fulfilled a need to educate members on aircraft ownership.

That's a kind way of telling you to **** off.

The problem is AOPA has to work with the government. That's AOPA's biggest problem.

GA numbers are shrinking because the golden age of aviation was 50 years ago.

 

[Half Fast]

GA numbers are shrinking because the golden age of aviation was 50 years ago.

GA is shrinking (is it?) partly because it's marketed to the wrong group. We keep running programs like EAA's Young Eagles and other youth activities as though these kids can afford to fly, or will convince their parents to pay for it. At best, it's recruiting for future airline pilots, and frankly I think we should let the airlines carry their own water.

Middle-aged and up is where the personal GA market is, and we should do more to market personal flying to that group if we want to see GA grow. As I've said before, we should augment Young Eagles with an Old Buzzards program.

 

[ateamer]

I’d be interested to see if there is data showing if Young Eagles is an effective program. As in, how many kids who went for a flight subsequently became a pilot?

 

[MauleSkinner]

That's a kind way of telling you to **** off.

Which is largely what I got every time I tried dealing with AOPA.

I think @MountainDude has a good idea. The problem is figuring out the tipping point for numbers where they’ll actually listen, and generating that level of support.

 

[MichiPilot]

The reality of the situation is that GA will die and is currently in the process. Business aviation / charter is the only thing in "general aviation" that will continue for some time. AOPA will continue to shift more toward business aviation and will similarly die off. Be real folks...look at any airport, EAA event. What do you see? Old white dudes. All of this outreach is useless.

 

[Brad W]

useless outreach only because it's so expensive.... and so inaccessible. I can afford it but it's a high price that's hard to justify.
Add to that the inaccessibility of airports.... no hangars, limited tie downs, long commutes...that all make it unrealistic

When I was most active, I didn't fit the mold of the middle-aged white dude. I was a recent college graduate...a young white dude who could truly barely afford it.. really couldn't afford it, but I had time back then and enough passion to make the budget work

 

[Half Fast]

What do you see? Old white dudes. All of this outreach is useless.

AFAIK, old white dudes are still being produced. Maybe we should pursue that demographic.

 

[wsquare]

AFAIK, AOPA is not engaging on the issue of automated landing fee & billing systems, which could be more of a threat to GA than the once proposed ATC fees. Why is AOPA taking such an apparent lackadaisical position to this new landing fee threat to GA, when they were so active in fighting the ATC fees? Perhaps AOPA could do better on this issue.

 

[MountainDude]

GA is shrinking (is it?) partly because it's marketed to the wrong group. We keep running programs like EAA's Young Eagles and other youth activities as though these kids can afford to fly, or will convince their parents to pay for it. At best, it's recruiting for future airline pilots, and frankly I think we should let the airlines carry their own water.

Middle-aged and up is where the personal GA market is, and we should do more to market personal flying to that group if we want to see GA grow. As I've said before, we should augment Young Eagles with an Old Buzzards program.

Love that suggestion. Thank you for offering a solution.

 

[Barrett50]

Take their money away. I can't find their financial docs anywhere except the wacky Amazon Web Service link and I'm not going to fart around with the decoder ring to open the 990 filing. I haven't paid AOPA for decades, but a lot of people have. They have $100M in the bank. A $100M org has no interest in hearing from constituents much less the gen flying public.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

GA is shrinking (is it?) partly because it's marketed to the wrong group. We keep running programs like EAA's Young Eagles and other youth activities as though these kids can afford to fly, or will convince their parents to pay for it. At best, it's recruiting for future airline pilots, and frankly I think we should let the airlines carry their own water.

Middle-aged and up is where the personal GA market is, and we should do more to market personal flying to that group if we want to see GA grow. As I've said before, we should augment Young Eagles with an Old Buzzards program.

That already exists: https://www.eaa.org/eaa/learn-to-fly/introductory-flights-for-free/eaa-eagle-flights-program

 

[EvilEagle]

I have had a bit of a softening on my stance against AOPA. It helped me because I actually asked questions of the people on the staff at AOPA vs going to web boards where nearly every keyboard warrior tears down every organization that doesn't do their bidding because they gave their $50/year.

I can tell you why AOPA doesn't do as much stuff for the little guys as we would all like - the little guys are CHEAPSKATES! For $89 a year what do we really expect? You get a magazine every month, you got basic med, you got a ton of resources (yes they probably aren't all directed at each individual but there's a TON of info on the website), they do engage with Capital Hill on our behalf - and they actually have a seat at the table. The new FAA authorization bill has a TON of GA-specific stuff including funding set aside for hangar development nationwide, they've expanded basic med, MOSAIC is approved, they are working on trying to keep the transition to unleaded gas as cost effective and gradual as possible... I mean; they do a ton of stuff. There will be people that think all that would happen without AOPA. I'm doubtful, but none of us can know for sure.

Is it a perfect organization? Nope it's not. I do know that they are concerned with membership numbers so not giving them your $89/year will eventually be noticed. I imagine there are some strings that could be tightened at AOPA but the more I actually learn what they are doing, the more I'm glad to support it. It's not perfect but it's better than everything else there is. (for the record, I'm also a lifetime member of EAA, so they get my money too).

(flame suit on)

 

[flyingcheesehead]

@EvilEagle nailed it. I belong to AOPA and EAA because like it or not, they are our voice at the table.

Are they perfect? Nope, just like every organization everywhere they have their flaws. So send in your money, but also tell them what you want to see.

The biggest problem with AOPA is that they're essentially charged with fighting forces they'll never be able to. Most of the problems with GA are related to our numbers shrinking and costs going up, which is the death spiral of GA, but AOPA is powerless to stop some of the macroeconomic forces that are causing it.

I do think it'd be worthwhile for them to put some sponsorship funding towards some of the aviation YouTubers (and TikTokers, and Instagrammers). That's where they're going to get the next generation, and it's a helluva lot cheaper to put sponsorship ads on YouTube than on TV.

They should also take a lesson from Cirrus, and in fact should work with Cirrus, GAMA, EAA, and anyone else that has an interest in GA being strong: Stop preaching to the choir, go places where people with enough money are, and tell them how awesome flying is... And do everything you can to ensure that they can get from point A (being a person with desire and money but no experience) to point B (someone who is able to enjoy their chosen niche in aviation and is an active member of the GA community). That means you do outreach at boat shows*, luxury car dealers, and anywhere else you might find people with money.

* He hasn't posted for a very long time, but for those who remember Chip @gibbons, he told me this: The flight school at his airport pulled the wings off an LSA and took it to a boat show, despite lots of poo-pooing of the idea among the existing GA crowd at the airport they were the hit of the show. IIRC he said they sold 47 intro flights in a single day. Flying is cooler than boating. People who want boats have money. Take their money!

As a rule, GA really sucks at marketing. We love talking to each other, but we suck at talking to anyone else beyond telling all the pretty girls "Hey, I'm a pilot!"

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

I recently asked AOPA for help just getting a meeting with FAA policy leaders about being shut down developing an alternative engine. They couldn't even help with that. I ended my membership. I wrote an article for Air Facts about the experience and made some suggestions several other GA guys had regarding AOPAs focus. there were many reader comments with interesting suggestions as well. worth reading for just the comments.

The Corsair C172-V8 Experiment Update #3—Reader’s Suggestions : Air Facts Journal

Unfortunately, it became clear that FAA leadership had no interest in supporting such a solution—whether as an experimental conversion for certified airframes or via a STC (a certification that would allow owners to replace their original engine with ours on certified aircraft)—regardless of the...

airfactsjournal.com

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

and to earlier points, AOPA certainly has an important role in reviving piston GA, and dues are low and maybe we have lofty expectations. I just think their focus should be on making ga affordable so more can afford to join the ranks. It really just comes down to needing the numbers to have the influence to get things moving again. the longer it takes, the fewer airports, planes, mechanic shops, ect ... will be around and it becomes that much more of a rich man's sport for a few.

 

[MountainDude]

I have had a bit of a softening on my stance against AOPA. It helped me because I actually asked questions of the people on the staff at AOPA vs going to web boards where nearly every keyboard warrior tears down every organization that doesn't do their bidding because they gave their $50/year.

I can tell you why AOPA doesn't do as much stuff for the little guys as we would all like - the little guys are CHEAPSKATES! For $89 a year what do we really expect? You get a magazine every month, you got basic med, you got a ton of resources (yes they probably aren't all directed at each individual but there's a TON of info on the website), they do engage with Capital Hill on our behalf - and they actually have a seat at the table. The new FAA authorization bill has a TON of GA-specific stuff including funding set aside for hangar development nationwide, they've expanded basic med, MOSAIC is approved, they are working on trying to keep the transition to unleaded gas as cost effective and gradual as possible... I mean; they do a ton of stuff. There will be people that think all that would happen without AOPA. I'm doubtful, but none of us can know for sure.

Is it a perfect organization? Nope it's not. I do know that they are concerned with membership numbers so not giving them your $89/year will eventually be noticed. I imagine there are some strings that could be tightened at AOPA but the more I actually learn what they are doing, the more I'm glad to support it. It's not perfect but it's better than everything else there is. (for the record, I'm also a lifetime member of EAA, so they get my money too).

(flame suit on)

Thank you for chiming in. I would like to provide my input.

This is not about a member paying $89 per year. This is about AOPA spending their $50M annual budget on a lot of PR, attending events, paying their managers huge salaries (the CEO gets $1.5M per year), and flying around their planes, all in the name of "promoting GA". This is not what I want my representative organization to use their $50M budget. I want them to fight tooth and nail every issue that comes up, such that any airport manager or city official thinking about restricting GA would be sure that AOPA is going to come after them.

You say "they do engage with Capital Hill on our behalf". Yes, they have been engaged and have been talking, but where are the results. They have been "working" on more hangars for decades, yet the hangar situation is getting worse. How long do we simply listen to their words and say this is the best they can do?

All I am asking is that they set goals for each year, and at the end of the year they list the accomplishments. This is a standard practice in companies that are accountable to their investors. I would like AOPA to be accountable to us, as paying members.

 

[AV8R_87]

As I've said before, we should augment Young Eagles with an Old Buzzards program.

Eagle Flights is the answer, and we do a fair amount each year. We also organize fly-outs for our members about 15 times a year. That gives a decent exposure to aviation to a good amount of people that wouldn't get a chance otherwise.

As in, how many kids who went for a flight subsequently became a pilot?

Private level, I'd say maybe 2-3 every year, or about 1-2% of the number we fly. One of them usually ends up continuing on their way to ATP.

 

[hindsight2020]

. the longer it takes, the fewer airports, planes, mechanic shops, ect ... will be around and it becomes that much more of a rich man's sport for a few.

On the bolded, have you read the comments on here? These cats think that's not the bug, that's the FEATURE! Advertise to the moneybags, and screw these aspirational poors complaining from outside the chain link fence. Get rich sucker, then come talk to us. Real inviting. This is why I don't believe in the myth of pilot solidarity.

Fact is, AOPA cannot help with making the thing more affordable, and the collective clearly doesn't think that's a worthwhile pursuit in the first place, so why the eff would I give $85 bucks to endorse that message? They unironically believe the sector can "shrink to expansion". It's unreal to witness.

 

[NordicDave]

... We keep running programs like EAA's Young Eagles and other youth activities as though these kids can afford to fly, or will convince their parents to pay for it. At best, it's recruiting for future airline pilots, and frankly I think we should let the airlines carry their own water.

Another consideration regarding Young Eagles, it gets the community onto the airport for a positive experience breaking down "us verses them" on the other side of the noisy fence.

 

[PaulS]

I have had a bit of a softening on my stance against AOPA. It helped me because I actually asked questions of the people on the staff at AOPA vs going to web boards where nearly every keyboard warrior tears down every organization that doesn't do their bidding because they gave their $50/year.

I can tell you why AOPA doesn't do as much stuff for the little guys as we would all like - the little guys are CHEAPSKATES! For $89 a year what do we really expect? You get a magazine every month, you got basic med, you got a ton of resources (yes they probably aren't all directed at each individual but there's a TON of info on the website), they do engage with Capital Hill on our behalf - and they actually have a seat at the table. The new FAA authorization bill has a TON of GA-specific stuff including funding set aside for hangar development nationwide, they've expanded basic med, MOSAIC is approved, they are working on trying to keep the transition to unleaded gas as cost effective and gradual as possible... I mean; they do a ton of stuff. There will be people that think all that would happen without AOPA. I'm doubtful, but none of us can know for sure.

Is it a perfect organization? Nope it's not. I do know that they are concerned with membership numbers so not giving them your $89/year will eventually be noticed. I imagine there are some strings that could be tightened at AOPA but the more I actually learn what they are doing, the more I'm glad to support it. It's not perfect but it's better than everything else there is. (for the record, I'm also a lifetime member of EAA, so they get my money too).

(flame suit on)

@EvilEagle nailed it. I belong to AOPA and EAA because like it or not, they are our voice at the table.

Are they perfect? Nope, just like every organization everywhere they have their flaws. So send in your money, but also tell them what you want to see.

The biggest problem with AOPA is that they're essentially charged with fighting forces they'll never be able to. Most of the problems with GA are related to our numbers shrinking and costs going up, which is the death spiral of GA, but AOPA is powerless to stop some of the macroeconomic forces that are causing it.

I do think it'd be worthwhile for them to put some sponsorship funding towards some of the aviation YouTubers (and TikTokers, and Instagrammers). That's where they're going to get the next generation, and it's a helluva lot cheaper to put sponsorship ads on YouTube than on TV.

They should also take a lesson from Cirrus, and in fact should work with Cirrus, GAMA, EAA, and anyone else that has an interest in GA being strong: Stop preaching to the choir, go places where people with enough money are, and tell them how awesome flying is... And do everything you can to ensure that they can get from point A (being a person with desire and money but no experience) to point B (someone who is able to enjoy their chosen niche in aviation and is an active member of the GA community). That means you do outreach at boat shows*, luxury car dealers, and anywhere else you might find people with money.

* He hasn't posted for a very long time, but for those who remember Chip @gibbons, he told me this: The flight school at his airport pulled the wings off an LSA and took it to a boat show, despite lots of poo-pooing of the idea among the existing GA crowd at the airport they were the hit of the show. IIRC he said they sold 47 intro flights in a single day. Flying is cooler than boating. People who want boats have money. Take their money!

As a rule, GA really sucks at marketing. We love talking to each other, but we suck at talking to anyone else beyond telling all the pretty girls "Hey, I'm a pilot!"

These two understand.

 

[MauleSkinner]

These two understand.

…or not, depending on your perspective.

 

[flyingron]

I incentivized AOPA by stopping throwing money at them.

I never got a meaningful response out of any inquiry made to AOPA management. On the other hand, I've heard from various departments at EAA from Pelton on down in response to inquiries I've made there. I was surprised as hell when both Connie Bowlin (WOA) and Michael Goulian (IAC) called me back to discuss the issue I had sent to them. Can't tell you the number of letters I've had back and forth with Dick Knapinski there.

 

[EvilEagle]

You say "they do engage with Capital Hill on our behalf". Yes, they have been engaged and have been talking, but where are the results. They have been "working" on more hangars for decades, yet the hangar situation is getting worse. How long do we simply listen to their words and say this is the best they can do?

All I am asking is that they set goals for each year, and at the end of the year they list the accomplishments. This is a standard practice in companies that are accountable to their investors. I would like AOPA to be accountable to us, as paying members.

I don't know the answer to this so I'm truly asking - do other lobbying organizations set yearly goals? When talking about affecting change in something as unbending as the US Government and big money, I would think there's no way to estimate the ability to affect change on a particular timeline. Congress shuts down, some other "catastrophe" happens, etc. $50M is a lot to us, but remember it is a tiny budget compared to most things on the hill.

I'm not saying it can't get better, every human endeavor could be better since none of us are perfect. I do think we get an AWFUL lot of support for an organization that probably gets about $55 a year from our dues (the magazine has to cost something to make and ship every month). If we were all paying $1k a year or even $500 a year it would be a different story - but then they would have more power to wield.

 

[flyingron]

AOPA has a lousy reputation on the hill and unlike some other lobbying organizations, not the funds to throw around to overcome that.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

On the bolded, have you read the comments on here? These cats think that's not the bug, that's the FEATURE! Advertise to the moneybags, and screw these aspirational poors complaining from outside the chain link fence. Get rich sucker, then come talk to us. Real inviting.

The sad fact is that right now we're far enough down the death spiral that the only thing that's going to save us is people who can jump right in with both feet, and that requires money. Once there are more customers, the costs will come down and we can include more people.

I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a 15-percenter. But owning half a plane is the best I can do... And part of that is the practicality of it. Sure, if I got a Citabria or something instead, I could fly cheaper on a per-hour basis but then flying would be probably 2/3 of the price it is now for me, and all the time and money would be spent on me. It's far easier to justify when I can fly the wife and kids places and save us some money on airline tickets, and go places where it's hard to get to on an airline flight.

So no, it's not a feature - But without people who have money putting that money into GA, the low end won't exist. And I recognize that I am able to do this because of the people that have a lot more money than me, burn a lot more fuel than me, and pay a lot more in fuel taxes than I do, giving the airport infrastructure a reason to exist. Municipal airports do not exist for recreational flyers, they exist for local businesses to be able to bring in money.

So if you don't have a lot of money and you make a big stretch to own a Luscombe or a C120 or whatever, that's AWESOME and I want you to do it and I'd rather talk with you than the guy who just got off the whiny stinky airplane - But neither of us will have an airport without that guy, and if we want to grow aviation we have to do it by getting the people with money into it.

Fact is, AOPA cannot help with making the thing more affordable, and the collective clearly doesn't think that's a worthwhile pursuit in the first place, so why the eff would I give $85 bucks to endorse that message?

Not at all true. Of course they want to make it more affordable, because the more pilots we have, the more clout they have, the more people send them the $85, the more people read their magazine, the more advertisers they'll have.

The other poster was right, this goose is cooked, we're just watching the death process in real time.

I'm afraid you are correct.

The irony is most of my peers are dual-hat mil/airline pilots (which is to say they outearn me by 2x-5x+ without breaking a sweat), and they want nothing to do with the hobby. Half a dozen former owners themselves too. So it's not just about having money.

Definitely not. Money is just a prerequisite. Nobody is going to stick to the small piston GA side of things without having at least a little passion for it.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Of course they want to make it more affordable, because the more pilots we have, the more clout they have, the more people send them the $85, the more people read their magazine, the more advertisers they'll have.

Of course, the flip side is the more pilots they drive away, the less clout they have, and the fewer people who send them $85, the fewer people will read their magazine, and the fewer advertisers they’ll have.

I’m not talking about pilots who might say, “yeah, AOPA is just too expensive.” I’m talking about pilots who were actively driven away by AOPA’s behavior.

 

[Daleandee]

I incentivized AOPA by stopping throwing money at them.

 

[farangutan]

GA is shrinking (is it?) partly because it's marketed to the wrong group. We keep running programs like EAA's Young Eagles and other youth activities as though these kids can afford to fly, or will convince their parents to pay for it. At best, it's recruiting for future airline pilots, and frankly I think we should let the airlines carry their own water.

Middle-aged and up is where the personal GA market is, and we should do more to market personal flying to that group if we want to see GA grow. As I've said before, we should augment Young Eagles with an Old Buzzards program.

I took up a really old lady for her first GA flight on her 94th or 95th birthday. It was just as fun and fulfilling as taking up kids. Count me in.

 

[bonefishpete]

AOPA is the NRA of Aviation.

 

[Bob Noel]

AOPA is the NRA of Aviation.

not even close

 

[Daleandee]

AOPA is the NRA of Aviation.

Please feel free to elaborate clearly as you substantiate this resemblance ...

 

[MauleSkinner]

Please feel free to elaborate clearly as you substantiate this resemblance ...

Like the alphabet, they both end in “A”.

 

[Daleandee]

Like the alphabet, they both end in “A”.

That's a start

 

[bonefishpete]

Supported aopa for years but when an airport issue came up they could care less or weren’t willing to ruffle the politicians feathers. I will say aopa probably didn’t have a million dollar suit allowance though.

 

[Nick Geber]

AFAIK, AOPA is not engaging on the issue of automated landing fee & billing systems, which could be more of a threat to GA than the once proposed ATC fees. Why is AOPA taking such an apparent lackadaisical position to this new landing fee threat to GA, when they were so active in fighting the ATC fees? Perhaps AOPA could do better on this issue.

Yes, they are actively involved on this issue

 

[bonefishpete]

Yes that Vector fee company is something SunPass of the sky’s. Just the whole corridor from me SUA to north of DAB the sky’s infested lol, with Skyhawks and Cherokee’s flight training. One airport manager calls the busy pattern “Pattern Saturation “ and to be restricted by landing fee’. ADSB of course enables it.

 

[Martin Pauly]

It's easy to throw stones at AOPA because of this thing or that thing they should be doing but aren't (or maybe just not visibly so), but in the end AOPA's political influence has ensured for decades that the US is by far the best country in the world for general aviation flying. I've seen the alternative for myself, and it's not a better place.

You may not like everything about it, but think about what things would look like without AOPA, in terms of access to airspace, ATC privatization, reopening airspace after 9/11, BasicMed, user fees, ... There's a long list of really substantial things I give AOPA credit for.

- Martin

 

[flyingron]

AOPA is the NRA of Aviation.

They lack the NRA's funding.