AOPA Membership Dues increase

Henning said:
Katie,

This exemplifies my position and why I don't support AOPA anymore, the wrong issues are being given priority and often on the wrong side of the issue. I realize that jets are sometimes operated GA, but they have their own representative organizations with members that have finances rivaling small countries. SMO has a large base of very wealthy users, Let Angelina, Brad, Kurt... and the rest spend their money keeping SMO open. Heck, it would likely be as simple as limiting SMO to recip traffic and limiting the hours of high horsepower/decibel operations. The main qualm the neighborhood has had for a long time is jet traffic anyway. Does it serve the majority membership better to negotiate a restricted use facility, or try to protect jet traffic into SMO when there are other fields not far off?

AOPA shouldn't be prioritizing the membership money to save SMO, there are many more dollars available from other sources who have a direct vested interest in SMO, let those dollars get spent there.

AOPA should be getting behind the rapid enactment and enforcement of the GA Revitalization legislation and the implementation of the Experimental Non Commercial rules, and pushing to raise the applicable inventory to all recip aircraft <6000MGW.

This is the issue of greatest import to light GA, the body of people that made AOPA happen, and the organization that is supposed to represent us.

You sold us all down the river for the money that flies the shiny jets and I resent the hell out of you all for it. Get your acts together and start fighting the fights that matter to us, the small guys operating light planes for personal use outsides the extremes of what rational budgets would allow. We need this new category of operations in order to modernize our fleet otherwise the costs are greater than most planes are worth and carry no value forward in a sale. With this category we can put FADEC with electronic injection and timing with real time knock detection and elimination. This is the key to improved operating economy and reliability eliminating 'top overhauls' and all the cylinder and valve work expenses related in running leaded fuel and rich mixtures. Our airframes are doing just fine thank you, what we need is to be able to upgrade our engines from a 1950s technology and bring our panels up to date and ready for when ADS-B comes into effect, cost effectively all using tried and true multi generation technology that started development in the 1970s.

Why don't I see or hear about AOPA fighting for this?
Click to expand...
Because AOPA takes ad money from the dinosaur companies that would be hurt by what would help most of us.
 
Henning said:
Katie,

This exemplifies my position and why I don't support AOPA anymore, the wrong issues are being given priority and often on the wrong side of the issue. I realize that jets are sometimes operated GA, but they have their own representative organizations with members that have finances rivaling small countries. SMO has a large base of very wealthy users, Let Angelina, Brad, Kurt... and the rest spend their money keeping SMO open. Heck, it would likely be as simple as limiting SMO to recip traffic and limiting the hours of high horsepower/decibel operations. The main qualm the neighborhood has had for a long time is jet traffic anyway. Does it serve the majority membership better to negotiate a restricted use facility, or try to protect jet traffic into SMO when there are other fields not far off?

AOPA shouldn't be prioritizing the membership money to save SMO, there are many more dollars available from other sources who have a direct vested interest in SMO, let those dollars get spent there.

AOPA should be getting behind the rapid enactment and enforcement of the GA Revitalization legislation and the implementation of the Experimental Non Commercial rules, and pushing to raise the applicable inventory to all recip aircraft <6000MGW.

This is the issue of greatest import to light GA, the body of people that made AOPA happen, and the organization that is supposed to represent us.

You sold us all down the river for the money that flies the shiny jets and I resent the hell out of you all for it. Get your acts together and start fighting the fights that matter to us, the small guys operating light planes for personal use outsides the extremes of what rational budgets would allow. We need this new category of operations in order to modernize our fleet otherwise the costs are greater than most planes are worth and carry no value forward in a sale. With this category we can put FADEC with electronic injection and timing with real time knock detection and elimination. This is the key to improved operating economy and reliability eliminating 'top overhauls' and all the cylinder and valve work expenses related in running leaded fuel and rich mixtures. Our airframes are doing just fine thank you, what we need is to be able to upgrade our engines from a 1950s technology and bring our panels up to date and ready for when ADS-B comes into effect, cost effectively all using tried and true multi generation technology that started development in the 1970s.

Why don't I see or hear about AOPA fighting for this?
Click to expand...

I am a member of AOPA, and will continue to be. But I agree with much of what you say. I am not in the "sold down the river" camp. But I think the areas of emphasis you note would serve us spam-canners well.
 
PPC1052 said:
I am a member of AOPA, and will continue to be. But I agree with much of what you say. I am not in the "sold down the river" camp. But I think the areas of emphasis you note would serve us spam-canners well.
Click to expand...

I don't know how long you've been a member, but I was one for 20 years and watched it tumble. Their early forums were quite a riot, sometimes literally lol. AOPA has lost focus on small GA and has adopted the BA community issues as their primary focus.
 
AOPA, if you stop making useless swag to cram down members throats every year like pins, hats and headset cases etc. You wouldn't need to increase fee's at all. Combine that with the astronomical waste in paper you send to each member asking for MORE money ever 6 days...

I stopped renewing my membership because I didn't see any benefits of having it. Anyone who thinks AOPA is an actual voice for GA or aviation in general has been drinking the Kool-Aid.
 
Henning said:
I don't know how long you've been a member, but I was one for 20 years and watched it tumble.
Click to expand...

Not nearly as long as you. My employer (of which I am a very small percentage part owner) pays my membership, so I have no driving reason to stop payment.
 
Inverted said:
AOPA, if you stop making useless swag to cram down members throats every year like pins, hats and headset cases etc. You wouldn't need to increase fee's at all. Combine that with the astronomical waste in paper you send to each member asking for MORE money ever 6 days...

I stopped renewing my membership because I didn't see any benefits of having it.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Exact reasons why I didn't renew the last few years. They sure have strayed from their roots....although they won't admit it.
 
With the feds puming ~$120,000,000 in made up money into circulation....whaddaya expect?
 
As a AOPA member for decades and the AOPA Airport Support representative for Jackson Hole I can say ...

AOPA lost their way and forgot who they represent.... A few years back there was a MAJOR push back and numerous members wanted things changed to reflect reality..... Like Proxy voting by board members to keep their buddies in..... Obscene payrolls to a VERY top heavy administration. wasteful mailing to members at what seems like daily crap in our mail boxes..... Now AOPA claims to have seen the light and altered it's massive and top heavy structure somewhat... Time will tell if you guys went far enough, but I can say.. a 30% jump in dues is not going to sit well with the dedicated pilots who have stuck by you over the last few years of member turmoil......

I am waiting to see just how really effective the AOPA is when the votes come in from congress on the 3rd class medical waiver...:rolleyes:

Stay tuned...
 
ClimbnSink said:
Oh so nasty. Do you represent the welcoming face of GA and AOPA members?:lol:
Click to expand...
The most polite response I could come up with to a snarky and rude message from someone I wasn't communicating with. And yes I know I ended my sentence with a preposition.
 
Henning said:
I don't know how long you've been a member, but I was one for 20 years and watched it tumble. Their early forums were quite a riot, sometimes literally lol. AOPA has lost focus on small GA and has adopted the BA community issues as their primary focus.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that to be true. They do stand up to encroachment of rules that would affect turbines, but that is because turds roll down hill and if they let the feds get away with something that supposedly only hurts the "big iron" now it will be fatal to mom and pop aviation later.

When did you drop your membership?
 
I agree that it's misguided to spend so much membership money so defending SMO.

It's one airport and it doesn't even benefit GA that much. That money is better spent on other things. There's no shortage of fields in the US or even in Santa Monica. One closing is not the end of the world. While the AOPA should stand against it, they shouldn't be dumping tons of cash into the cause.

They need to be focusing on Congress and working toward more affordable GA solutions.
 
N801BH said:
I am waiting to see just how really effective the AOPA is when the votes come in from congress on the 3rd class medical waiver...:rolleyes:

Stay tuned...
Click to expand...

Might be best for AOPA to ask for a "raise" after they have successfully pushed the 3rd class waiver rule into effect and after they have pushed the ADS-B reg's back so the mandated airspace is more rational - i.e. smaller. Say Class B&C airspace and above the altitudes where O2 is required. That would exempt a substantial portion of the recreational fleet.
 
kyleb said:
Might be best for AOPA to ask for a "raise" after they have successfully pushed the 3rd class waiver rule into effect and after they have pushed the ADS-B reg's back so the mandated airspace is more rational - i.e. smaller. Say Class B&C airspace and above the altitudes where O2 is required. That would exempt a substantial portion of the recreational fleet.
Click to expand...
AOPA killed the first DL medical rule and have been pro ADS-B from the start. AOPA works against my aviation interests, not for them.
 
Katie Pribyl said:
... To address the question about cash surplus, you may be thinking about our reserve. Our reserve is set aside to serve members, but that doesn’t mean we should use it for everyday operating costs—that’s not a sustainable strategy. The reserve exists to support programs and major issues outside of typical operating plans. Right now, we are using reserve funds to pay for legal representation in our efforts to preserve the historic Santa Monica Airport. It’s important to keep the reserve funded so we’re prepared to fight for our members whenever major issues arise. ...
Click to expand...
Katie, either someone is lying to you and you are naively believing it or you are being disingenuous. There are no other possible explanations.

AOPA's most recent IRS 990 (available on guidestar.org), shows reserves of $71,000,000. Even at inside-the-beltway rates, the cost of "legal representation in ... efforts to preserve the historic Santa Monica Airport" is a pittance in comparison. What can it cost? A couple of hundred thousand? That's three-tenths of one percent of the cash hoard.

Looked at another way, the cash hoard is four and one-half years of dues income and almost two years of total income. I challenge you to identify any comparable membership/lobbying organization that has reserves of even half this amount relative to its business size. I have personally searched on guidestar.org and have found none.

AOPA's business is very stable and predictable. Income may trend up and down slightly over the years, but in contrast to an organization like the Red Cross there is no potential for expensive emergencies that might justify a large reserve. AOPA's need for a reserve is minimal -- $10M should be more than sufficient. So using $60M as the excess and 400,000 members, that is $150 that has been unnecessarily picked from the pockets of each member.

Mark Baker has a lot of experience running failing businesses. My hope upon seeing his resume was that his experience with austerity would cause him to put a stop to the greed and excess that has characterized AOPA for years. I am sorry to see that it has not. I dropped my membership in disgust at the height of the Craig Fuller party and had hoped to see a reason to rejoin. I do not.
 
ClimbnSink said:
AOPA killed the first DL medical rule and have been pro ADS-B from the start. AOPA works against my aviation interests, not for them.
Click to expand...

AOPA has been a loud voice on the wrong side of quite a few issues over the years. The tower closures come to mind. Instead of taking a pragmatic position that with the appropriate data in hand, it would be OK to close some towers, AOPA went all-in against any tower closures. That cost them a lot of credibility with me.
 
I've been a member since 1989, I enjoy the magazine, the forum is not nearly as good as this one, but the price is pretty small! My National Automobile Dealer Association membership is around $1000.00 :dunno:
I can't think of any other organization that does anything for me as a pilot. I doubt any organization is perfect and we can always find fault in things political, but geez guys we are talking about less than $100.00?:dunno:
As for the junk mail, I don't get a lot of it, if I do, I don't notice it and throw it out.:dunno:
Since I can't contribute to my congress critter (he's a racist) I'll count this as my ONLY influence in DC. :D
 
I'm curious what AOPA's PAC amounts to these days. That's where the influence on the Hill comes from.
 
MarkZ said:
I'm curious what AOPA's PAC amounts to these days. That's where the influence on the Hill comes from.
Click to expand...

PAC money is a wildcard in DC... If ya think you are outspending the "otherside". They will always come up with prettier hookers and more expensive booze and lavish trips......

It is the MOST corrupt system in the history of the United States Of America... IMHO....:mad2::mad2:
 
airdale said:
Katie, either someone is lying to you and you are naively believing it or you are being disingenuous. There are no other possible explanations.

AOPA's most recent IRS 990 (available on guidestar.org), shows reserves of $71,000,000. Even at inside-the-beltway rates, the cost of "legal representation in ... efforts to preserve the historic Santa Monica Airport" is a pittance in comparison. What can it cost? A couple of hundred thousand? That's three-tenths of one percent of the cash hoard.

Looked at another way, the cash hoard is four and one-half years of dues income and almost two years of total income. I challenge you to identify any comparable membership/lobbying organization that has reserves of even half this amount relative to its business size. I have personally searched on guidestar.org and have found none.

AOPA's business is very stable and predictable. Income may trend up and down slightly over the years, but in contrast to an organization like the Red Cross there is no potential for expensive emergencies that might justify a large reserve. AOPA's need for a reserve is minimal -- $10M should be more than sufficient. So using $60M as the excess and 400,000 members, that is $150 that has been unnecessarily picked from the pockets of each member.

Mark Baker has a lot of experience running failing businesses. My hope upon seeing his resume was that his experience with austerity would cause him to put a stop to the greed and excess that has characterized AOPA for years. I am sorry to see that it has not. I dropped my membership in disgust at the height of the Craig Fuller party and had hoped to see a reason to rejoin. I do not.
Click to expand...

Perfect explanation of how AOPA is a BUSINESS, not an advocacy group. AOPA is a cyclical machine of charging members fees to enroll, just to ask them for more money. There isn't one historical reference to AOPA being instrumental in any policy changes, or representing the voice of their members.
 
kyleb said:
AOPA has been a loud voice on the wrong side of quite a few issues over the years. The tower closures come to mind. Instead of taking a pragmatic position that with the appropriate data in hand, it would be OK to close some towers, AOPA went all-in against any tower closures. That cost them a lot of credibility with me.
Click to expand...

It is the same with airport closures, which I am close to being completely against. Instead of being so defensive on any changes to be made, taking a realistic approach to the situation would give AOPA more credibility, and would probably get more willing ears on the situation.
 
airdale said:
Katie, either someone is lying to you and you are naively believing it or you are being disingenuous. There are no other possible explanations.

AOPA's most recent IRS 990 (available on guidestar.org), shows reserves of $71,000,000. Even at inside-the-beltway rates, the cost of "legal representation in ... efforts to preserve the historic Santa Monica Airport" is a pittance in comparison. What can it cost? A couple of hundred thousand? That's three-tenths of one percent of the cash hoard.

Looked at another way, the cash hoard is four and one-half years of dues income and almost two years of total income. I challenge you to identify any comparable membership/lobbying organization that has reserves of even half this amount relative to its business size. I have personally searched on guidestar.org and have found none.

AOPA's business is very stable and predictable. Income may trend up and down slightly over the years, but in contrast to an organization like the Red Cross there is no potential for expensive emergencies that might justify a large reserve. AOPA's need for a reserve is minimal -- $10M should be more than sufficient. So using $60M as the excess and 400,000 members, that is $150 that has been unnecessarily picked from the pockets of each member.

Mark Baker has a lot of experience running failing businesses. My hope upon seeing his resume was that his experience with austerity would cause him to put a stop to the greed and excess that has characterized AOPA for years. I am sorry to see that it has not. I dropped my membership in disgust at the height of the Craig Fuller party and had hoped to see a reason to rejoin. I do not.
Click to expand...
Wondering what your background is in association management. Do you think it's good practice to have only 4 months of revenues in reserve?

Also, Baker just started, and he's already made significant staffing cuts, give him a chance.

Shortly after 9/11, I told Phil to his face at a town hall meeting that without him and AOPA we wouldn't be flying private aircraft with anything resembling the freedom we have. He gave me an "Aw, shucks" response but I absolutely believe that without their efforts GA would have been strangled by all of the Chicken Littles in government and the media. The measly 50 bucks a year is well worth the representation we get.
 
That's still a good deal if you think about it. That includes your magazine subscription, online services like vRef, Pilot Info Center (for when you want to ask a question without getting judged by POA "smart guys"), the flying club and training initiatives, various information sources, and advocacy. I am a member of IEEE, and I pay a lot more for that, and get more daily value from AOPA.

I appreciate that someone from AOPA answered a question about reserves.

Crabby people be crabby... What can ya do?
 
MarkZ said:
I'm curious what AOPA's PAC amounts to these days. That's where the influence on the Hill comes from.
Click to expand...

They drove membership in the GA caucus, one of the largest non-partisen caucuses in the country, and a key advocate on CBP, 3rd class, and Pilot bill of rights. pretty good list IMHO.
 
LDJones said:
30% increase is small?
Click to expand...

paflyer said:
Geez, it's 14 bucks. A buck and change per month.
Click to expand...

Having looked over the new membership rates and assuming no desire to maintain a print subscription to the magazine, the increase is only $4 or roughly 9%. Just felt compelled to throw that out there since, to my knowledge, it is a change from how things were (i.e., everyone got a print copy of their magazine and you could buy the digital).
 
Dear AOPA,

Get the third class DL medical situation done and finished and you will get a renewal.

Sincerely.
 
bjohnsonmn said:
They drove membership in the GA caucus, one of the largest non-partisen caucuses in the country, and a key advocate on CBP, 3rd class, and Pilot bill of rights. pretty good list IMHO.
Click to expand...

A) complete and utter failure on CBP. If anything, they've made it worse with their namby-pamby response: 'show your license, show your registration, be polite, lick the boot, roll over, bark!, play dead'. Eff that.

B) AOPA has been farting around the edges of the DL medical for ages. I can remember newsletters back in the 90s saying it was just around the corner! If they've had any influence at all, it's been minimal.

C) PBOR came about for one and only one reason. A senator landed on a closed runway, and he was hung out to dry for it until he wheeled and dealed in the senate by negotiating other stuff away to get the PBOR. Read it, carefully, and you will see what I mean. All it does is require the record keeping for investigation, and require notification of the pilot that he's under the microscope. It's actually mostly watered down crap, and I doubt it's made one iota of difference in any pilot's career. Just like the start of the health care privacy laws that were required back in the 80s for your records. It was good, then it was modified so that it benefited the medical records profession and the patient was left out in the cold with no recourse.

You're way off base, and you've been drinking AOPA flavored kool-aid like many others. Take the blinders off and read their annual report. It's mind blowing. The best thing that could happen to GA is for AOPA to somehow go out of business and let a Phoenix rise from the ash heap. But you hangers-on just won't kill it off. GAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH :mad2::mad2::mad2:
 
Oh, and while I'm good and hot, you gotta know that when Angelina picks up the phone and dials AOPA she talks to the top dog, and not some renewal clerk while she whines about the potential closing of SMO. She made ~$22 MILLION dollars on her last movie! Let her hire a phalanx of lawyers and tie up the city counsel for a few years! Why should the rank and file be paying for the elites? And don't give me that do goody-good BS about the FAA taking other airports, the FAA wants to keep SMO open as well. It's the SMO city counsel that is the turd in the punchbowl.

Remember Meigs? Yeah - good job there AOPA, you jackasses.
 
If you think $59 a year is costly, just wait til you are paying per-flight user fees.. Who do you think lobbies against that?
 
Doggtyred said:
If you think $59 a year is costly, just wait til you are paying per-flight user fees.. Who do you think lobbies against that?
Click to expand...

Everyone but the airlines.

You're not naive enough to believe that while AOPA is completely ineffective in every argument, somehow they actually make a different with user fees, right? They represent 400,000 members. No one in the government gives two squirts of pee what they say.

So instead, they'll just hoard cash so that they can use dollars as their backbone against the government, while they take credit for other organizations' hard work.

I left years ago. Haven't gone back. Once AOPA refocuses on missions it can actually win, I may come back. For starters, pushing through the owner-maintained aircraft and eliminating the third class medical are things they can push. Maybe spending a bit of that hoard to defend members that have been screwed by DHS.
 
Doggtyred said:
If you think $59 a year is costly, just wait til you are paying per-flight user fees.. Who do you think lobbies against that?
Click to expand...


Hmmmmmm..

ADS-B is the gateway to user fees as they can track ALL flights. whether it be biz jets flying at FL510 or a cub heading over to his/her neighbors grass strip.......

Guess who is pushing ADS-B....:dunno:......:mad2:
 
N801BH said:
Hmmmmmm..

ADS-B is the gateway to user fees as they can track ALL flights. whether it be biz jets flying at FL510 or a cub heading over to his/her neighbors grass strip.......

Guess who is pushing ADS-B....:dunno:......:mad2:
Click to expand...

AOPA is making a much bigger issue out of one airport than it did over the mandate for ADS-B. I've been a member for 20 years and if there was any big issue AOPA should have fought during that period, it was the breadth of the ADS-B mandate.
 
SkyHog said:
For starters, pushing through the owner-maintained aircraft and eliminating the third class medical are things they can push.
Click to expand...

Agree completely.

Along with the non-commercial private aircraft category, simplification of the certification process, and expediting the 100LL alternative approval.

All are things that would help broaden the appeal of GA as well as helping those who are already involved.

They should be pushing hard for all these issues to be fully integrated and working hard to ensure the language contained in these regulations is GA friendly. They should be leading the charge, and not just following along and reporting on others' progress.

They need to be leaders not followers and they haven't been leaders for quite some time.

I also let my membership lapse during the Dark Years of Craig. I only came back because, as I get older, I find that need access to "approved medication" databases and AOPA has the best that I've run across. But that's the only reason I'm a member. I honestly do not see them as useful on many/any other level. And whether that is an honest evaluation or not, many pilots share that view.

Hopefully Mark will work hard to change that image and to make AOPA relevant again.

As far as the price increase is concerned...meh...it's chump change.
 
As GA continues to die a slow death, the need for AOPA will become less needed than it is today. GA aircraft are older than most of the people flying them, the technology is as old as dirt and the cost exceeds the disposable income of the general population. Nothing is going to overcome those facts.
 
pilot_dude said:
As GA continues to die a slow death, the need for AOPA will become less needed than it is today. GA aircraft are older than most of the people flying them, the technology is as old as dirt and the cost exceeds the disposable income of the general population. Nothing is going to overcome those facts.
Click to expand...

The EAA , homebuilts and all its members are giving that theory a run for it's money...:yes:.....IMHO...
 
pilot_dude said:
As GA continues to die a slow death, the need for AOPA will become less needed than it is today. GA aircraft are older than most of the people flying them, the technology is as old as dirt and the cost exceeds the disposable income of the general population. Nothing is going to overcome those facts.
Click to expand...
As long as they don't F'with part 103 I'm good. Some how I don't think AOPA would lift a finger to help with anything part 103 and I wouldn't be surprised if they raised a hammer to crush it given the opportunity.
If you are not a jet guy AOPA is the enemy. Might as well send money to Al-qaida.
 
Clip4 said:
If $14 is a big increase, McDonolds is looking for workers.
Click to expand...

Zero, zip, nada of the complainers on here have said anything about the base dollar amount. I came closest with my rant about the percentage of the base, but if you'll read carefully the issue with AOPA is it's ineffectiveness and lack of utility to GA at any price.

I'd pay $100/year if I could get representation that was suitable to the mainstream GA flier like most of us.

The day AOPA bought the jet, was the most telling of all. And then to block it's movements from the people paying the tab! Give em credit, they do have big 'nads. :yes:

I knew right then it was full-on left wing elitists lighting cigars with members money. eff that. $71 MILLION in the bank, and you guys are still lubing up and bending over. :lol:
 
Bonchie said:
I agree that it's misguided to spend so much membership money so defending SMO.

It's one airport and it doesn't even benefit GA that much. That money is better spent on other things. There's no shortage of fields in the US or even in Santa Monica. One closing is not the end of the world. While the AOPA should stand against it, they shouldn't be dumping tons of cash into the cause.

They need to be focusing on Congress and working toward more affordable GA solutions.
Click to expand...

This is a landmark case of the last several years, it's being watched closely by pro and anti aviation groups. We fail this one, it's going to change airport closure efforts from a trickle (not such a trickle today) into a flood.

I have to admit that I'm bothered by the big cash hoard, and I would really really like AOPA to focus more closely on certification & a/c modernization efforts. Hopefully the association is planning to use some of the money on that. Affordability will come from usage of high-volume technologies, parts, & fuels, not boutique low-volume everything that we're currently being held hostage to.
 
bjohnsonmn said:
That's still a good deal if you think about it. That includes your magazine subscription, online services like vRef, Pilot Info Center (for when you want to ask a question without getting judged by POA "smart guys"), the flying club and training initiatives, various information sources, and advocacy. I am a member of IEEE, and I pay a lot more for that, and get more daily value from AOPA.

I appreciate that someone from AOPA answered a question about reserves.

Crabby people be crabby... What can ya do?
Click to expand...

Being a member of IEEE means something on your resume. I can think of no industry or company (other than AOPA) where AOPA membership means anything on your resume. And that includes Boeing & Jeppesen.

Vref is a WAG at best.

As for Advocacy, I've seen first hand the only "Advocacy" is a letter written to [fill in the blank] and then AOPA makes Big Claims it was Instrumental in [fill in the blank].

Bah humbug.

But I do appreciate the limited legal & medical info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top