AOPA sold their aviation insurance business.

[gkainz]

Tom, can you clarify what the nature of this support is?

@TomHaines - also curious about additional support ... maybe this is talking out of school, but I'm frustrated with lack of responsiveness from AOPA in calls our club (Ten Hi Flyers) has placed in the last 3-6 months trying to get information regarding Insurance coverage for Officers in our club. I chalk it up to the recent sale efforts, and again - perhaps out of place here - but .... help?

Edit - this

Access to dedicated staff conversant in issues affecting clubs, such as IRS rules, FARs, insurance, and aircraft financing. An online flying club finder for prospective members. In-person flying club leadership seminars around the country. A monthly email newsletter for club leadership promoting best practices. Networking events at AirVenture and sun n fun, among others.

Thanks. Now, regarding my issue above ... how? who? What number(s)?

 

[Keith Ward]

First, let me state that I have no dog in this fight. I'm just getting back into flying after years away. But I *do* have some knowledge of AOPA, having done a bit of freelance writing and editing for them over the years. (Note that I've only worked with them in a freelance capacity, so I'm not beholden to them, and thus not unduly influenced or biased.)

When it comes to AOPA's mission, it's my experience that their entire existence is built around helping promote pilots and GA. I've been in the offices and heard the talk (FWIW, I live in and fly out of the county next door - DMW). I know many of the folks who work there, and their desire is not for self-aggrandizement in any way, shape or form. They simply love flying. They want to make sure GA continues as a viable industry, and are working furiously to realize that vision.

@TomHaines and others do important work every day. Just consider the impact of their Air Safety Institute videos (on YouTube) alone -- how much have they helped pilots over the years? And that's only the tiniest slice of their efforts. They are continually looking for ways to help GA pilots.

That is AOPA's driving -- its only, IMO -- motivation. I don't want to sound like an AOPA commercial, and as I mentioned, I've only done a very small amount of work for them over the years. But that exposure was enough to convince me that the organization is doing everything it can to keep GA going.

/steps down from soapbox

 

[Challenged]

Prior to taking any official action, it may have worked to everyone's benefit to seek direct input from current hangar tenants as well as nearby AOPA members and/or nearby pilots in the airman registry. A small survey could have possibly yielded some common feelings about the hangar issue. I'm also surprised at how many PoA members seem to be directly impacted by this, it must be a popular aviation area. Perhaps this was already a part of the process, so my apologies if that was the case.

If you're currently a tenant, do you automatically get first dibs on one of the new hangars?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Prior to taking any official action, it may have worked to everyone's benefit to seek direct input from current hangar tenants as well as nearby AOPA members and/or nearby pilots in the airman registry. A small survey could have possibly yielded some common feelings about the hangar issue. I'm also surprised at how many PoA members seem to be directly impacted by this, it must be a popular aviation area. Perhaps this was already a part of the process, so my apologies if that was the case.

If you're currently a tenant, do you automatically get first dibs on one of the new hangars?

Tenant here. I've been on the field since the early 80's....and no, current tenants go to the bottom of the list. Strange as it sounds...they are out in the cold. But, they've "known" this day was coming for some time. The FDK airport has (3) waiting lists that each require a $500 deposit. They are newer hangars, older hangars (mid field), and old hangars (south side slated to be torn down). If one wants to move they pay the $500 and go to the bottom of the list. Now, I've seen a few select folks get moved, bumping those waiting, into a hangar without waiting and those are usually connected to a well known alphabet group.

btw...no one asked the current tenants what is desirable in a survey. Possibly, it could have been discussed at an airport meeting (not well attended). I can say most are in the south hangars cause they are "low cost" and do not want the expensive, newer hangars, on the north side. As I said in another post....there are hangars available near by for more $$$ and additional travel time is required. Those hangars are not convenient to anyone local to the FDK area.

I still continue to support AOPA and I've been a member for some time.....I didn't support the wine club either.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Access to dedicated staff conversant in issues affecting clubs, such as IRS rules, FARs, insurance, and aircraft financing. An online flying club finder for prospective members. In-person flying club leadership seminars around the country. A monthly email newsletter for club leadership promoting best practices. Networking events at AirVenture and sun n fun, among others.

The reason I had to ask the question is that, until a year ago, I was president of a flying club. I was president for two years, but on the board of directors in several capacities for a total of 13 years. The only thing I can remember getting from AOPA was dinner at Oshkosh a couple years ago. It was interesting to talk with other people who were leading flying clubs, but it didn't lead to any groundbreaking new ideas for us.

We were/are on AOPA's flying club finder. We got exactly zero prospective members from it. Most of our new members came from people Googling "flying club" and our location and finding our web site, with a couple being referred by existing members.

Now, that said, the club is extremely well-run, has excellent, well-equipped airplanes, no issues getting insurance or financing thanks to our 60-year history and a very long-term relationship with our bank, etc. Our club is thriving, and we really don't *need* a lot of support from AOPA like others might.

But we got zero contact from AOPA. We weren't notified of these "flying club leadership seminars" (where I'm sure we could have contributed), we didn't get the monthly email newsletter for club leadership... I didn't even know either of those existed until now. Nobody contacted us to verify that our listing on the flying club finder was still current, etc... I'm guessing that there isn't anyone at AOPA whose full-time job is to manage and promote the Flying Club Network? As important as clubs are to GA overall, there should be. And if there is, maybe they're overwhelmed and need additional staff assigned to them.

This sort of disappointing effort is probably why a lot of people become disillusioned with AOPA. It might be helpful to do fewer things, but do them better.

 

[TomHaines]

@TomHaines - also curious about additional support ... maybe this is talking out of school, but I'm frustrated with lack of responsiveness from AOPA in calls our club (Ten Hi Flyers) has placed in the last 3-6 months trying to get information regarding Insurance coverage for Officers in our club. I chalk it up to the recent sale efforts, and again - perhaps out of place here - but .... help?

Edit - this


Thanks. Now, regarding my issue above ... how? who? What number(s)?

Michael Hangartner from the Flying Club staff should be reaching out to you. He may be able to find you via the info on your profile but it would be helpful if you pm me an email address.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I can say most are in the south hangars cause they are "low cost" and do not want the expensive, newer hangars, on the north side. As I said in another post....there are hangars available near by for more $$$ and additional travel time is required. Those hangars are not convenient to anyone local to the FDK area.

That's my worry with this sort of thing... Not all are being represented. I co-own a very nice traveling airplane and I was in a flying club that also had very nice traveling airplanes. Adding a couple hundred bucks a month to my hangar bill isn't going to push me out of aviation.

But, there are plenty of people who either don't have the money for a fast airplane, or don't care to go anywhere and just want to get off the ground and have fun, or don't have family members who will fly GA and thus aviation is an occasional-Saturday-afternoon thing for them. They own Cherokees and 150s, Citabrias and Champs, Ercoupes and Taylorcrafts. Their plane was purchased for $20K, if that. It doesn't have a GPS in the panel, probably isn't even IFR equipped, gets worked on by the owner and signed off by their A&P to save money, has an engine that's past TBO but still running...

When that person has an extra $200/mo or more added to their hangar bill, it's a significant hit. Their airplane may not catch anyone's eye on the ramp, but it's still their pride and joy, and they're probably not going to be okay with leaving it outside on the ramp, getting snowed on, **** on, etc... And so they sell it and quit flying. And there goes someone who was an AOPA member, and someone who could show others how aviation doesn't have to be expensive.

Through this board, I've been lucky enough to meet a lot of active pilots. But among my social circles in "real life" I meet more former pilots than current ones.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

@TomHaines - also curious about additional support ... maybe this is talking out of school, but I'm frustrated with lack of responsiveness from AOPA in calls our club (Ten Hi Flyers) has placed in the last 3-6 months trying to get information regarding Insurance coverage for Officers in our club.

Greg, our club has Directors & Officers insurance. If you'd like, I can put you in touch with our Treasurer who was in charge of initiating and purchasing it. He recently retired from the insurance industry himself, too.

 

[gkainz]

Greg, our club has Directors & Officers insurance. If you'd like, I can put you in touch with our Treasurer who was in charge of initiating and purchasing it. He recently retired from the insurance industry himself, too.

Much appreciated, Kent. I can be reached at gregkainz@comcast.net
And, thank you, @TomHaines. PM sent but email right here as well.

 

[SoonerAviator]

If we're playing that game: with the war chest AOPA has, it'd probably do more for GA to buy 100 aircraft, then set up their own flying clubs at airports around the country. Get the members signed up, then transfer ownership of the flying club to members. Boom, lots of people flying, AOPA does the legwork, AOPA walks away with no stake in the assets.

 

[MichiPilot]

The reason I had to ask the question is that, until a year ago, I was president of a flying club. I was president for two years, but on the board of directors in several capacities for a total of 13 years. The only thing I can remember getting from AOPA was dinner at Oshkosh a couple years ago. It was interesting to talk with other people who were leading flying clubs, but it didn't lead to any groundbreaking new ideas for us.

We were/are on AOPA's flying club finder. We got exactly zero prospective members from it. Most of our new members came from people Googling "flying club" and our location and finding our web site, with a couple being referred by existing members.

Now, that said, the club is extremely well-run, has excellent, well-equipped airplanes, no issues getting insurance or financing thanks to our 60-year history and a very long-term relationship with our bank, etc. Our club is thriving, and we really don't *need* a lot of support from AOPA like others might.

But we got zero contact from AOPA. We weren't notified of these "flying club leadership seminars" (where I'm sure we could have contributed), we didn't get the monthly email newsletter for club leadership... I didn't even know either of those existed until now. Nobody contacted us to verify that our listing on the flying club finder was still current, etc... I'm guessing that there isn't anyone at AOPA whose full-time job is to manage and promote the Flying Club Network? As important as clubs are to GA overall, there should be. And if there is, maybe they're overwhelmed and need additional staff assigned to them.

This sort of disappointing effort is probably why a lot of people become disillusioned with AOPA. It might be helpful to do fewer things, but do them better.

I've seen the same thing...was on the board of a club for many years...even when the flying club stuff rolled out. No contact to us....but we are a small club with 3 aircraft, 55 people.....................

 

[Lindberg]

How would you feel about it if the folks who you pay dues to, to "help" you keep flying affordable, facilitates knocking down your perfectly good $380 hangar and put up a $760 hangar to replace it, rather than building new ones to add capacity?

I know I wouldn't like it. I've been a member since John Baker was president. This is it for me.

It seems the population of this board is usually more conservative and capitalist than average...until the subject of hangars come up. Then it's all about "looking out for the little guy" and "gathering community input." It isn't the property owner's responsibility to keep you in your hangar. If the owner has an asset that's producing $x income, but with a small investment could produce $2x, and there's sufficient demand at $2x, then that's what should happen. If that means the consumers who only want to pay $x have to move somewhere less desirable, well, that's how the market works everywhere.

The guys paying these cheap rents have been paying them for a long time. The fact that rents are too low is evidenced by the fact that we see hangar waiting lists almost everywhere. No one is going to build new hangars and charge less than the market will bear. If you're paying less than market, someone is subsidizing the difference, even if it's just the property owner eating it. It's one thing to demonstrate that constructing hangars can be an inexpensive and profitable endeavor. But what would be the point of demonstrating that it could be a money losing endeavor? Everyone already knows that. In this case, it's been stated a few times that just adding more hangars and keeping the old ones wasn't an option. I've got no personal knowledge of that.

 

[kyleb]

It seems the population of this board is usually more conservative and capitalist than average...until the subject of hangars come up. Then it's all about "looking out for the little guy" and "gathering community input." It isn't the property owner's responsibility to keep you in your hangar. If the owner has an asset that's producing $x income, but with a small investment could produce $2x, and there's sufficient demand at $2x, then that's what should happen. If that means the consumers who only want to pay $x have to move somewhere less desirable, well, that's how the market works everywhere.

The guys paying these cheap rents have been paying them for a long time. The fact that rents are too low is evidenced by the fact that we see hangar waiting lists almost everywhere. No one is going to build new hangars and charge less than the market will bear. If you're paying less than market, someone is subsidizing the difference, even if it's just the property owner eating it. It's one thing to demonstrate that constructing hangars can be an inexpensive and profitable endeavor. But what would be the point of demonstrating that it could be a money losing endeavor? Everyone already knows that. In this case, it's been stated a few times that just adding more hangars and keeping the old ones wasn't an option. I've got no personal knowledge of that.

Given that the cheap hangars have been paid for for decades, they are a source of essentially free income to the owner. According to the thread, there are waiting lists on the field, so why reduce capacity, then add it back at a higher cost? Why not just add capacity with the higher cost units and enjoy the continuing income from the old hangars. That way, you keep the tenants in the old hangars (fuel sales, highly profitable hangar rental) and add more tenants in the new hangars?

What is happening there makes no sense from 500 miles away.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Given that the cheap hangars have been paid for for decades, they are a source of essentially free income to the owner. According to the thread, there are waiting lists on the field, so why reduce capacity, then add it back at a higher cost? Why not just add capacity with the higher cost units and enjoy the continuing income from the old hangars. That way, you keep the tenants in the old hangars (fuel sales, highly profitable hangar rental) and add more tenants in the new hangars?

What is happening there makes no sense from 500 miles away.

A little bit more back ground....bout 10-15 years ago, maybe 20 years, an airport manager had a plan/vision to redevelop the airport and bring in more commercial activity (i.e. business jets). The south end was re-jiggered (in a master plan) and a bunch of matching fed $$$mil showed up. That allowed the city to purchase industrial buildings & land for the runway extension project (those were torn down and land was graded) to make way for new corporate hangars....in the south side. All that meant a group of old hangars, bout 20, were to be removed and this area would be re-developed. Everyone knows this and was kinda biding time for that day.....and now it's here.

Cept the fly in the ointment was the low cost hangars. There was always a plan to replace them, but with the more expensive fancy ones....ones with electric, and electric doors and cement floors. No one on this end of the airport wanted that....no one flys spensive aircraft down on this side. I doubt there are many aircraft worth more than $100K in these hangars...ok, maybe one or two, but not many.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Given that the cheap hangars have been paid for for decades, they are a source of essentially free income to the owner. According to the thread, there are waiting lists on the field, so why reduce capacity, then add it back at a higher cost? Why not just add capacity with the higher cost units and enjoy the continuing income from the old hangars. That way, you keep the tenants in the old hangars (fuel sales, highly profitable hangar rental) and add more tenants in the new hangars?

It sounds like you're thinking the FBO owns the hangars - Not always the case. At my airport, the county owns some, the FBO owns some, and various private individuals own the rest. Those people don't care one whit about "keeping tenants" beyond filling their own hangars. If they can make a bigger profit on new hangars, they will.

Oddly enough, there haven't been any new ones recently. There's talk of a new company putting in some gigantic ones way at the other end of the field (new FBO maybe?), and there's been talk of another company building some for individual owners on a few of the remaining empty lots, but I haven't seen much movement there. In fact, I contacted them to ask about those and never heard back.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

The problem I have with this is that it's AOPA putting in the final shiv, not a local developer that wants to take on the project. They're doing it claiming it's a future model for airport development, without a plan to assist the current lessees, or an option to increase hangar capacity at the airport overall, or any other comprehensive plan that I'm aware of. I have no doubt what will go up will be nice, but it's neither needed nor wanted by the airport community. Old and cheap work just fine, thank you very much. Perfectly respectable with a fresh coat of paint. The project will, no doubt, result in enhanced revenue for the city. If this is the kind of help the assn. is going to provide grassroots aviation, aircraft owners, thanks, but no thanks.

 

[kyleb]

It sounds like you're thinking the FBO owns the hangars - Not always the case. At my airport, the county owns some, the FBO owns some, and various private individuals own the rest. Those people don't care one whit about "keeping tenants" beyond filling their own hangars. If they can make a bigger profit on new hangars, they will.

Other facts have been presented, but I guarantee if there was an owner (the FBO or the Airport Authority), the owner would make a lot more financial profit renting out the hangars with a cost basis of zero (the old ones) as opposed to investing the capital to build new ones, then leasing them. Your return % with no cost basis is tremendous. And then, since there is (per the reports in the thread) additional demand, you build the new hangars and make a profit on those too. It is called having your cake and eating it too...

 

[airdale]

If we're playing that game: with the war chest AOPA has, it'd probably do more for GA to buy 100 aircraft ...

Funny. Actually at an average cost of around $100K, the hoard is enough to buy about 800 airplanes. That is without considering whatever money they got from selling the insurance agency.

 

[SoonerAviator]

Funny. Actually at an average cost of around $100K, the hoard is enough to buy about 800 airplanes. That is without considering whatever money they got from selling the insurance agency.

That was kind of my point. I was thinking they could go out and buy 100 of $40-$75K birds (C182/PA24/PA28/M20/etc) that are in annual/airworthy, and get 6-10 pilots around every class D airport to put a $5K-10K buy-in with rules/regs already written and T-hangar procured. Everyone drops the funds in escrow, title is transferred, AOPA walks away. Seems like the hardest part for AOPA would be doing what they're designed to do: reach out to GA pilots and advocate. Is there some risk? Sure, but as long as they're buying the aircraft at a fair price, they could sell it for what they bought it for if they couldn't get enough members locked in. There are probably 400-500 Class D airports around the nation, so I'd imagine that if you could get one flying club into each airport over the next 10 years, you'd end up with a few thousand pilots back in the system who may have been dormant or just renting.

 

[Challenged]

Cut other expenses in half for a single year and you could probably get a good number of clubs going to test the waters, or dip into the pot as mentioned above:

AOPA 2016 Expenses:

• Advocacy: $12,652,000
• Publications: $11,097,000
• Products/Services: $10,127,000
• Membership Development: $5,926,000
• Member Engagement: 5,649,000
• Total: $45,451,000

AOPA 2016 Investments:

• Alternative Investments: $51,556,000
• Common Stock and Mutual Funds: $13,755,000
• Money Market Funds: $7,396,000
• Bond backed mutal funds: $3,251,000
• Total: $75,958,000

 

[Challenged]

• Salaries and benefits: $25,720,000
• Professional fees: $4,823,000
• Production costs: $3,480,000
• Travel and meetings: $3,210,000
• Depreciation: $2,901,000
• Distribution costs: $2,517,000
• Rent and maintenance: $2,412,000
• Communications and Technology: $2,188,000
• Credit card, bank charges, interest: $1,071,000
• Contributions: $993,000
• Dues, license, subscriptions: $696,000
• Taxes and Insurance: $614,000
• Supplies: $353,000
• Other: $116,000

 

[timwinters]

Tom typically does a great job when he comes here to defend AOPA. But this statement:

AOPA has reserves that could cover it if it is a complete bust, but that is unlikely...

Holy crap, Tom, really? Who's money is that? <pssst...hint...the members>

AOPA usually does one or two things every year **** me off and make me say "I'm done." But every year I still send my check.

Why?

Honestly, I don't know. But I'll probably send them a check again this year.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Geez Tim....all in all AOPA does good work, but, I'm a neighbor next door to the community hangar....so, some of us see more than others.

I still gladly support AOPA....despite the few things I don't like. But, I know many of the employees and I work with many former employees. It's all good folks....

 

[airdale]

Re all the numbers, I have some experience looking at nonprofit tax returns and will offer the caution that where there are wholly owned for-profit subsidiaries, the tax return numbers are not the complete story. Often, the sins are hidden in the subs (In this case "AOPA Holdings Corporation" and "AOPA Insurance Agency") because the subs' tax returns are not public. Nepotism, embarrassing expenses, etc. are invisible. No way to know whether this is the case for AOPA or not.

Other tidbits:

2017 Form 990, Part V, Line 4b: "At any time during the calendar year, did the organization have an interest in, or a signature over, a financial account in a foreign country (such as a bank account, securities account)? or other authority or other financial account." Answer was "Yes." In Cayman Islands and Bermuda.

2017 Schedule F, Part 4, Line 1: "Was the organization a U.S. transferor of property to a foreign corporation during the tax year? If "Yes," the organization may be required to file Form 926, Return by a U.S. Transferor of Property to a Foreign Corporation (see Instructions for Form 926)" Answer was "Yes."

2017 Schedule F, Part 4, Line 3: "Did the organization have an ownership interest in a foreign corporation during the tax year? If "Yes," the organization may be required to file Form 5471, Information Return of U.S. Persons With Respect To Certain Foreign Corporations (see Instructions for Form 5471)" Answer was "Yes."

According to their tax preparer Grant Thornton, AOPA is not required to make Form 5471 public and it is not included in the public tax information. No mention is made of Form 926 but it is AWOL as well.

2017 Schedule L, Part IV: Baker was reimbursed $98,498 for business use of personal aircraft. That's about $2K/week.