AOPA Dues going up again

For an association called "Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association" to own and operate a small fleet of GA airplanes seems totally appropriate to me. Particularly if it helps them do their job as an advocate/educator/etc. You can make the argument that it doesn't, but then you are basically saying GA has no business value.
Your comment makes no business sense. Airplanes, for a business, are either cost-effective or they are toys. The jet and, probably the Caravan on floats, are toys.

In the highly unlikely event that they need a jet to "do their job as an advocate/educator/etc." they can rent one. Warren will be happy to take their money.
 
Your comment makes no business sense...

Honestly, I have no idea if it makes business sense from AOPA's perspective (and probably neither do you). On the face of it, it seems appropriate considering their customer base.

Here's what's actually happening here. Some folks have a very negative opinion of AOPA (for good reason or not, I won't speculate). From that perspective, they view everything the organization does as suspect. Which includes "frivolous business jets and airplanes". And in taking this stance, those people are perpetuating the exact wrong-headed attitude that GA is a toy for the rich. It is self-destructive and feeds into a public perception that causes airports to be closed, manufacturers to go out of business, and a general trend downward. Don't be part of the problem here, folks.
 
Honestly, I have no idea if it makes business sense from AOPA's perspective (and probably neither do you). On the face of it, it seems appropriate considering their customer base.

Here's what's actually happening here. Some folks have a very negative opinion of AOPA (for good reason or not, I won't speculate). From that perspective, they view everything the organization does as suspect. Which includes "frivolous business jets and airplanes". And in taking this stance, those people are perpetuating the exact wrong-headed attitude that GA is a toy for the rich. It is self-destructive and feeds into a public perception that causes airports to be closed, manufacturers to go out of business, and a general trend downward. Don't be part of the problem here, folks.

I'd rather them have 1 jet vs the fleet of idiotic 100K c152s
 
I couldn't care less if they have an entire fleet of airplanes. I want to know what their goals are and whether they're accomplishing them.
 
I can't understand this attitude. Whats the deal, here? We as pilots and plane owners only respect planes that are cheaper than ours? This is the kind of anti-GA attitude that we call out in others, and here we turn it on our own? Someone needs to explain this to me.

In most organizations, the company jet is no more than a CEO perk. I do not support membership organizations that maintain jets for their CEOs.

It is a short drive from Frederick, MD into DC where the AOPA does it advocacy. Maintaining a jet to fly down to Sun and Fun, Oshkosh or membership functions demonstrates culture of wasteful spending.
 
Last edited:
In most organizations, the company jet is no more than a CEO perk. I do not support membership organizations that maintain jets for their CEOs.

It is a short drive from Frederick, MD into DC where the AOPA does it advocacy. Maintaining a jet to fly down to Sun and Fun, Oshkosh or membership functions demonstrates culture of wasteful spending.
Not true, there are plenty of corporations that use jets to move employees around efficiently. If you were an exec with AOPA and you could visit four far-flung places in a day or two instead of riding the tube and spending a week for the same outcome, I doubt you'd be complaining. National org like AOPA have business interests all over, not just in DC. If it helps to promulgate private aviation I have no problem. Dues and membership are purely voluntary.

Flying pols around on tax dollars, I am not in favor of.

In any case, I thought they sold the jet.
 
Not true, there are plenty of corporations that use jets to move employees around efficiently. If you were an exec with AOPA and you could visit four far-flung places in a day or two instead of riding the tube and spending a week for the same outcome, I doubt you'd be complaining. National org like AOPA have business interests all over, not just in DC. If it helps to promulgate private aviation I have no problem. Dues and membership are purely voluntary.

Flying pols around on tax dollars, I am not in favor of.

In any case, I thought they sold the jet.

Yea yea, that why when the economy goes south the flight departments get eliminated rather quickly.
 
Yea yea, that why when the economy goes south the flight departments get eliminated rather quickly.
A lot of "non-essential" things get cut. BTW, CFO's don't generally travel so no skin off their noses.
 
the fact that they didn't figuratively lay across the railroad tracks regarding ADS-B..

Worse than that, they didn't even have an opinion they could express.

When the largest circulation paper in the US called a couple of years ago to ask for a comment on ADS-B, AOPA was unprepared, and responded with "no comment." That's how the WSJ quoted them. "No comment."

So I call the AOPA spokesperson "No-Comment Katie."

It's pathetic, but I pay my dues, grudgingly, because no matter how poorly they do advocacy, they have a monopoly on it.
 
Worse than that, they didn't even have an opinion they could express.

When the largest circulation paper in the US called a couple of years ago to ask for a comment on ADS-B, AOPA was unprepared, and responded with "no comment." That's how the WSJ quoted them. "No comment."

So I call the AOPA spokesperson "No-Comment Katie."

It's pathetic, but I pay my dues, grudgingly, because no matter how poorly they do advocacy, they have a monopoly on it.

The AOPA says we are fighting user fees. The annual membership in AOPA is higher than the annual NavCanada user fee on a typical single or multi engine piston airplane. The same is not true for the jet crowd.
 
According to FlightAware, they are "fighting the good fight" in Marathon Key this weekend. :)

You wouldn't want Baker to do more than a day of work a month would you?.

..let's see Baker pushed for a crap medical reform which benefits him, now wants to fight with signature since that is where he flies the jet, and is pushing 100k C150s. And, jacked dues $25 over the past 2 years.
 
EAA is now getting my money, AOPA over the last 7 or so years seem to have lost the focus on why they exist, the mag just seems to a) rerun old story's , b) feature aircraft that I could never afford to own or fly, c) more ad space than articles.

Exactly why I am not renewing Flying Magazine. I will miss some of their columnists, but overall, not a good use of my money. I'll stick with EAA and AOPA for now, however.
 
Exactly why I am not renewing Flying Magazine. I will miss some of their columnists, but overall, not a good use of my money. I'll stick with EAA and AOPA for now, however.

I did drop AOPA after 40+ years, but heck, I can get a Flying subscription for $12 a year.
 
They renewed my subscription automatically. Which is magical, considering they card they had on file was supposed to be expired.
 
In most organizations, the company jet is no more than a CEO perk. I do not support membership organizations that maintain jets for their CEOs.

It is a short drive from Frederick, MD into DC where the AOPA does it advocacy. Maintaining a jet to fly down to Sun and Fun, Oshkosh or membership functions demonstrates culture of wasteful spending.
The few orgs I've worked with that had a biz jet used them mostly for business, as in, getting parts or people to "other than hubs" on the same day. Like all else, I assume there is some room for waste. . .

Frederick may be a "short drive" from DC on Sunday morning; Tuesday, 0800, it's a good day if it's an hour to Rockville. Add another hour to downtown.
 
They renewed my subscription automatically. Which is magical, considering they card they had on file was supposed to be expired.

Is that not fraud ? Sirius XM did that to me as well and I torn the bank a new one for processing the transaction.
 
According to FlightAware, they are "fighting the good fight" in Marathon Key this weekend. :)

I remember years ago checking on all our companies tail numbers and a G5 sat for 8 days in Tenerife where I know we didn't have a facility . Now all their tail numbers are blocked except the test aircraft
 
The CEO of a certain farm store got caught regularly flying the corp jet down to his Florida home. The IRS came down pretty hard on him.

So, how to fix the problem?

Build a store in that town.
 
Honestly, I have no idea if it makes business sense from AOPA's perspective (and probably neither do you). On the face of it, it seems appropriate considering their customer base.

Here's what's actually happening here. Some folks have a very negative opinion of AOPA (for good reason or not, I won't speculate). From that perspective, they view everything the organization does as suspect. Which includes "frivolous business jets and airplanes". And in taking this stance, those people are perpetuating the exact wrong-headed attitude that GA is a toy for the rich. It is self-destructive and feeds into a public perception that causes airports to be closed, manufacturers to go out of business, and a general trend downward. Don't be part of the problem here, folks.

I don't have a very negative opinion of AOPA and I was a member for about 20 years. The organization today is dedicated to representing the interests of those who own or sell business jets with members who fly piston planes just there helping with that effort.
 
EAA has seemingly advanced more in small aircraft far more rapidly than AOPA has. AOPA likes cosigning on what EAA does though. In a vain effort to make it look like they care about sub-100k aircraft owners.
 
After 25 years I have stopped renewing AOPA. Too expensive. Sticking with EAA.

Rich
 
The CEO of a certain farm store got caught regularly flying the corp jet down to his Florida home. The IRS came down pretty hard on him.

So, how to fix the problem?

Build a store in that town.
You'd think a CEO would be smart enough to do that.
 
After 25 years I have stopped renewing AOPA. Too expensive. Sticking with EAA.

Rich
I have the regular membership and the legal plan, which fortunately I haven't had to exercise yet.
I think the total is about $100/year. Not even $3/day. That's too expensive for representation and services?

ps I'm also a member of EAA.
 
I think its the "representation" part most people question based on their recent performance.
 
The CEO of a certain farm store got caught regularly flying the corp jet down to his Florida home. The IRS came down pretty hard on him.

That's bizarre. My COO used to commute from his home on the west coast to Texas on United. IRS didn't think that expense was out of bounds. Not sure why the biz-jet equivalent would be different. Anyone know?
 
That's bizarre. My COO used to commute from his home on the west coast to Texas on United. IRS didn't think that expense was out of bounds. Not sure why the biz-jet equivalent would be different. Anyone know?
There are many ways to use a corporate airplane for personal travel, and also many ways to get in trouble with the IRS and SEC when doing it. It all depends on who was paying and how they declared that to the IRS.
 
There are many ways to use a corporate airplane for personal travel, and also many ways to get in trouble with the IRS and SEC when doing it. It all depends on who was paying and how they declared that to the IRS.

Sure. So why is a CEO using the trip to commute home one of them? That seems commonplace. I'm not asking a general question like "can I use the corp jet for anything I want". I'm asking about this specific example.
 
Sure. So why is a CEO using the trip to commute home one of them? That seems commonplace. I'm not asking a general question like "can I use the corp jet for anything I want". I'm asking about this specific example.
We can't say anything about this specific example unless we know how the CEO and the company treat it for tax and other purposes.
 
Sure. So why is a CEO using the trip to commute home one of them? That seems commonplace. I'm not asking a general question like "can I use the corp jet for anything I want". I'm asking about this specific example.
Well, a bit of a guess but the IRS does not consider commuting to be a deductible personal expense so probably it is not a deductible expense for the company to pay for commuting regardless of method. Using the company jet is probably taxable income to the commuter and a W-2 expense to the company unless (gasp!) he reimburses the company for the cost. Maybe we have a tax expert here who would know for sure.
 
Honestly, I have no idea if it makes business sense from AOPA's perspective (and probably neither do you). On the face of it, it seems appropriate considering their customer base.

Here's what's actually happening here. Some folks have a very negative opinion of AOPA (for good reason or not, I won't speculate). From that perspective, they view everything the organization does as suspect. Which includes "frivolous business jets and airplanes". And in taking this stance, those people are perpetuating the exact wrong-headed attitude that GA is a toy for the rich. It is self-destructive and feeds into a public perception that causes airports to be closed, manufacturers to go out of business, and a general trend downward. Don't be part of the problem here, folks.
The "problem" isn't the people taking the stance; it's the non-profit organization owning a jet - that's what feeds the destructive public perception.
 
Honestly, I have no idea if it makes business sense from AOPA's perspective (and probably neither do you). On the face of it, it seems appropriate considering their customer base.

Here's what's actually happening here. Some folks have a very negative opinion of AOPA (for good reason or not, I won't speculate). From that perspective, they view everything the organization does as suspect. Which includes "frivolous business jets and airplanes". And in taking this stance, those people are perpetuating the exact wrong-headed attitude that GA is a toy for the rich. It is self-destructive and feeds into a public perception that causes airports to be closed, manufacturers to go out of business, and a general trend downward. Don't be part of the problem here, folks.
Very well put.
 
The "problem" isn't the people taking the stance; it's the non-profit organization owning a jet - that's what feeds the destructive public perception.
Non profit doesn't mean an org has to operate like the Little Sisters of the Poor.

I detect a lot of class envy with AOPA opponents.
 
I've begun to wonder how much AOPA and NBAA missions are beginning to coincide. I'm still with AOPA (and EAA, of course), and still feel like I am receiving benefit (I don't receive the AOPA mag, instead I get Flight Training which is actually pretty decent) but keeping an eye on where things go, especially with the dues increasing so much over the past few years. AOPA needs to increase its efforts in terms of promoting small potatoes GA to continue to keep my interest.
 
I've begun to wonder how much AOPA and NBAA missions are beginning to coincide. I'm still with AOPA (and EAA, of course), and still feel like I am receiving benefit (I don't receive the AOPA mag, instead I get Flight Training which is actually pretty decent) but keeping an eye on where things go, especially with the dues increasing so much over the past few years. AOPA needs to increase its efforts in terms of promoting small potatoes GA to continue to keep my interest.

I don't even care about the dues increases. That's essentially just inflation. It's what they do with the dues and how effective they are that counts.

I've said it before, they're out of touch with the "O" in their name and should remove it. Your assertion that they're essentially an arm of NBAA is the same sentiment.

I learn more about maintaining and operating an airplane from articles in Sport Aviation. Even an old one like mine. AOPA refuses to publish prices on any of those things they do in their "better than new" series (or gasp, negotiate discounts for those things as part of advertising them for the manufacturers). Etc.

Until you get to the ASF or Flight Training, AOPA completely ignores the majority of the 70s-built fleet that still fills the ramps at most airports.

Seen any pushes to lower certification costs on avionics? Any AOPA articles pointing out that there's an EAB flying the same instrument approaches right next to the other airplanes for half the price and doing it safer with an affordable autopilot? Nope. They instead tout ADS-B like it's a panacea when it's not.

They simply don't represent owners. That's their biggest strategic mistake. I certainly have the money to buy a membership but if they ignore me as a 70s-vintage owner, why would I? They're busy having lunch with the Cirrus salespeople at some event somewhere. And that's fine. Their choice. But it isn't helping the average Joe with a Cessna or Piper out.

They lose consistently on the political front, too. BasicMed is a compromise between what it should have been (glider rules) and what it became. They actually PUSHED for the ADS-B mandate and STILL can't articulate why they did so. PBOR and similar, they were as surprised those happened as anyone.

EAA even for their size being smaller, consistently demands concessions for the little guy. Although I must admit, EAA picking up J. Mac was a mistake. There's not a more out of touch person with the little guy than him. At least from his writing. Never met the guy. But flight reviews of bizjets worked better for him at Flying. He's trying to learn to be a little guy. I'll give him credit for that.

Boyer at least walked the talk. He could do the Jet set crowd one day after showing up to talk to the rest of us in his Cessna. It meant a lot when you'd go to a seminar and he'd say he landed it at the GA airport a couple hours ago and grabbed a ride over to give the talk, and he would fly out again tomorrow in it to give the next one 500 miles down the road. He lived it. Flying across the country in an old piston GA airplane and wearing out the shoe leather at least part of the time.
 
They actually PUSHED for the ADS-B mandate and STILL can't articulate why they did so. PBOR and similar, they were as surprised those happened as anyone.

I recall reading a quote a while back from someone representing AOPA, paraphrasing, " the vast majority of airplanes already have GPS."

What a crock, certainly at that time. Most bugsmashers can't justify installing a WAAS GPS.
 
Your comment makes no business sense. Airplanes, for a business, are either cost-effective or they are toys. The jet and, probably the Caravan on floats, are toys.

In the highly unlikely event that they need a jet to "do their job as an advocate/educator/etc." they can rent one. Warren will be happy to take their money.
Do you rent, or own?
 
Well, a bit of a guess but the IRS does not consider commuting to be a deductible personal expense so probably it is not a deductible expense for the company to pay for commuting regardless of method. Using the company jet is probably taxable income to the commuter and a W-2 expense to the company unless (gasp!) he reimburses the company for the cost. Maybe we have a tax expert here who would know for sure.
Generally depends on what the "tax home" is for the employee. If he has an office near his home, that may be enough to call the trip to Texas a business expense to the company and not commuting for the employee. If not, the value of the flight becomes taxable income to the employee.
 
Back
Top