AOPA vs NATA

M

MountainDude

Cleared for Takeoff
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
1,053
Display Name
Display name:
MountainDude
Based on the info I could find on the internet:
- AOPA proposed transparent FBO fees on the next FAA re-authorization bill
- NATA lobbied back and got that removed (NATA is the FBO organization)
- AOPA wants more money to fight NATA better
- AOPA: $50M yearly budget
- NATA: $6M yearly budget
- AOPA CEO salary: $1.6M
- NATA CEO salary: $50K

This is why I no longer believe in AOPA. They have become self-serving, instead of member-serving.
 
My membership just lapsed. I’m not sure yet if I will rejoin. Smells of Wayne LaPierre…just a touch at least.
 
MountainDude said:
Based on the info I could find on the internet:
- AOPA proposed transparent FBO fees on the next FAA re-authorization bill
- NATA lobbied back and got that removed (NATA is the FBO organization)
- AOPA wants more money to fight NATA better
- AOPA: $50M yearly budget
- NATA: $6M yearly budget
- AOPA CEO salary: $1.6M
- NATA CEO salary: $50K

This is why I no longer believe in AOPA. They have become self-serving, instead of member-serving.
Click to expand...

NATA has a much more narrow profile, smaller membership, and a lot less to protect. I did not check the information, but having seen a similar post before, the NATA CEO is actually a part time position, for a few hours a month unless they are actively lobbying an issue which occurs once every couple years. NATA mostly spends its time watching for laws/regulations which would change the status quo.
In the specific case you site, NATA is defending the status quo. AOPA is trying to change the status quo. Anyone who has dealt with the US political system knows, change is always much more difficult.

Tim
 
tspear said:
NATA has a much more narrow profile, smaller membership, and a lot less to protect. I did not check the information, but having seen a similar post before, the NATA CEO is actually a part time position, for a few hours a month unless they are actively lobbying an issue which occurs once every couple years. NATA mostly spends its time watching for laws/regulations which would change the status quo.
In the specific case you site, NATA is defending the status quo. AOPA is trying to change the status quo. Anyone who has dealt with the US political system knows, change is always much more difficult.

Tim
Click to expand...
Tim, there are infinite excuses for/by AOPA over the years.

Yet, a pilot lands at an FBO at a small airport and they charge him $70 per night in parking fees without that info being displayed anywhere, digitally or in print. If AOPA dedicated 10 full-time people (by reducing the CEO's salary), and they actually wanted to solve the problem, it could have been solved by now. It's unacceptable to pay their CEO that much money without having very well defined and accomplished KPIs.

GA is getting killed by a 1000 cuts, partly because of endless excuses by our main representative organization. Very frustrating to watch this over the years. The main frustration for me is that I do not believe they really want to solve our problems. They are spending their $50M per year enjoying their lives and pretending they are doing something, unsuccessfully, so they can ask for more money. This is why 95% of startups die - investors don't take excuses forever; you actually have to accomplish something.
 
MountainDude said:
Tim, there are infinite excuses for/by AOPA over the years.

Yet, a pilot lands at an FBO at a small airport and they charge him $70 per night in parking fees without that info being displayed anywhere, digitally or in print. If AOPA dedicated 10 full-time people (by reducing the CEO's salary), and they actually wanted to solve the problem, it could have been solved by now. It's unacceptable to pay their CEO that much money without having very well defined and accomplished KPIs.

GA is getting killed by a 1000 cuts, partly because of endless excuses by our main representative organization. Very frustrating to watch this over the years. The main frustration for me is that I do not believe they really want to solve our problems. They are spending their $50M per year enjoying their lives and pretending they are doing something, unsuccessfully, so they can ask for more money. This is why 95% of startups die - investors don't take excuses forever; you actually have to accomplish something.
Click to expand...

You cut the CEOs salary, and you will get a crappy leader, and AOPA will be even less effective. It has been tried at many non-profits over the years. Look at the press from George B. of GAMI and others. They thank AOPA for a reason; and have often stated many things would not have passed without AOPA.
Ask who does EAA partner with on lobby issues? The goto is AOPA. Same for NBAA. Same for type organizations. For those trying to save an airport, who do they contact? AOPA.

The reality is, there are many more positions for highly skilled and effective leaders than there is a supply of high quality and effective leaders. Having met Mark Baker, I left impressed. He could easily be making a lot more in the private sector, likely twenty or thirty times more. Mark has been a lead executive of multiple billion dollar companies; which all have done well.

GA is shrinking. And will continue to get a thousand cuts. Until pilots and owners actually do something to reverse the trend, all AOPA can do is attempt to hold back the damage. Fundamentally, GA has become "scary" instead of a dream for the general public; at the same time GA has failed to listen and see where the public was going on environmental issues and other social items. Think about this point, we have known for a hundred years that TEL is bad for human health, the process to eliminate it from cars started in the 70s. How would GA be doing now, if the FAA joined at the same time requiring all planes made since 1975 to support 94UL (100LL without TEL) and 100LL?

Tim
 
Cue the nostalgia for Phil. . . .

even though people said the same stuff when he was at the helm.

And did you know they used to have a wine club??? Gadzooks!

If you envy Mark Baker, just come out and say so. Don't pixx and moan about AOPA on the socials, seeking validation for your pettiness. Meanwhile, what are you doing with $89 a year that accomplishes more than an AOPA membership?
 
tspear said:
Until pilots and owners actually do something to reverse the trend,
Click to expand...
Well, when I do any sort of self-help I'm called a scofflaw or a cheapskate, but please more of the victim-blaming serving, I'm running low on dessert.....
 
tspear said:
You cut the CEOs salary, and you will get a crappy leader, and AOPA will be even less effective. It has been tried at many non-profits over the years. Look at the press from George B. of GAMI and others. They thank AOPA for a reason; and have often stated many things would not have passed without AOPA.
Ask who does EAA partner with on lobby issues? The goto is AOPA. Same for NBAA. Same for type organizations. For those trying to save an airport, who do they contact? AOPA.

The reality is, there are many more positions for highly skilled and effective leaders than there is a supply of high quality and effective leaders. Having met Mark Baker, I left impressed. He could easily be making a lot more in the private sector, likely twenty or thirty times more. Mark has been a lead executive of multiple billion dollar companies; which all have done well.

GA is shrinking. And will continue to get a thousand cuts. Until pilots and owners actually do something to reverse the trend, all AOPA can do is attempt to hold back the damage. Fundamentally, GA has become "scary" instead of a dream for the general public; at the same time GA has failed to listen and see where the public was going on environmental issues and other social items. Think about this point, we have known for a hundred years that TEL is bad for human health, the process to eliminate it from cars started in the 70s. How would GA be doing now, if the FAA joined at the same time requiring all planes made since 1975 to support 94UL (100LL without TEL) and 100LL?

Tim
Click to expand...
NATA's CEO's salary is $50K, yet they successfully convinced the govt that hiding FBO fees is fine.

Several of your arguments are exactly why I am frustrated with AOPA: they keep talking, but not accomplishing. For $1.6M salary, anyone can attend meetings, fly a private jet, issue PR articles, and complain they don't have enough money. What is hard is to accomplish something, and AOPA has not been doing it.

In terms of TEL, it's not the pilots that failed anything, or the manufacturers. It's AOPA not working with the govt to find a way to get approvals for new fuels more easily and cheaply. If AOPA enabled easier rules to bring unleaded fuels to the market, we would have had them many years ago and pilots would have adopted them with no problem.
 
MountainDude said:
NATA's CEO's salary is $50K, yet they successfully convinced the govt that hiding FBO fees is fine.

Several of your arguments are exactly why I am frustrated with AOPA: they keep talking, but not accomplishing. For $1.6M salary, anyone can attend meetings, fly a private jet, issue PR articles, and complain they don't have enough money. What is hard is to accomplish something, and AOPA has not been doing it.

In terms of TEL, it's not the pilots that failed anything, or the manufacturers. It's AOPA not working with the govt to find a way to get approvals for new fuels more easily and cheaply. If AOPA enabled easier rules to bring unleaded fuels to the market, we would have had them many years ago and pilots would have adopted them with no problem.
Click to expand...
NATA did not do anything. NATA kept the status quo. Having DC change something is a very long game. Look at how long AOPA advocated for BasicMed! This stuff often takes a decade. ATC fees? Privatize ATC? These are the real threats to GA in the USA. How well has GA faired in other countries that have implemented such solutions?
How about state level taxes? AOPA pushed hard to stop MA from implementing a GA tax, and did a great job of getting other industries united to help stop it. The argument, they come for me, then they will come for you. :D

What other advocacy organizations can pilots contribute too? That actually has a descent presence in most state capitals and in DC?

In terms of avgas, if the answer was that easy it would have been done already. The problem is regulatory, and AOPA listens to the owners. And the owners, and the FAA decided to bury their collective heads in the sand starting in the early 70s. Everyone has always assumed there is some chemical formula which is a drop in replacement for TEL. Guess what, after a hundred years we have reached the conclusion there might be one, which is going to raise avgas prices by at least a buck a gallon. My guess is that it will be closer to two bucks a gallon. If back in 1975, when TEL was getting banned in cars, AOPA, FAA and plane owners actually looked ahead, they would have banned the sale of new planes starting in 1980 or even earlier which required 100LL. How much of the fleet would now have an issue if that was done?

GA is expensive, and many owners are cheap (I am very cheap, just ask my kids). However, with the very long life cycles for products in aviation, too often our regulations, our attitudes, and our pocket books fail to look ahead at gradual changes and instead wait until it has become a critical issue. And then we spend mega-bucks.

Tim
 
Ambivalent. . .I just re-re-rejoined after a longish lapse, mostly because I am, at last, buying an airplane. My outside-looking-in opinion is AOPA is too close, and too deferential to the FAA. Then again, though AOPA might not align with my every consideration, we do need some organization that can have impact.

As for pay, I know DC, and know the $$$ isn't out of line. . . I remember someone carping about the AOPA lobbyist's pay a long while back - same thing - it's a very high cost area (and I lived there for decade) and good management is the toughest role to fill - you can write a check for tech expertise anytime; not so much for effective management.
 
MountainDude said:
NATA's CEO's salary is $50K, yet they successfully convinced the govt that hiding FBO fees is fine.
Click to expand...
Not sure getting a senator or two on your side constitutes convincing the government, but they did achieve their aim for this round. Of course, that CEO was just sued for embezzling money from his company... that will at least be a distraction, I should think. You have to choose "the help" carefully.

Paul
 
All I can say is a group of pilots and owners are having a dispute with an airport. The airport changed a long standing agreement and went to an extreme amount of money from these tenants. They called AOPA, and was told they can’t do much to help them.
 
Sundancer said:
.. you can write a check for tech expertise anytime; not so much for effective management.
Click to expand...

perhaps, but way too many people think the large check written for a manager guarantees them anything. Just think about how many high-priced "managers" have driven companies into the toilet.
 
Sundancer said:
Ambivalent. . .I just re-re-rejoined after a longish lapse, mostly because I am, at last, buying an airplane. My outside-looking-in opinion is AOPA is too close, and too deferential to the FAA. Then again, though AOPA might not align with my every consideration, we do need some organization that can have impact.

As for pay, I know DC, and know the $$$ isn't out of line. . . I remember someone carping about the AOPA lobbyist's pay a long while back - same thing - it's a very high cost area (and I lived there for decade) and good management is the toughest role to fill - you can write a check for tech expertise anytime; not so much for effective management.
Click to expand...
I argue they do not have "effective management". They have been enjoying the money they get and coming up with infinite excuses. Effective management would have a large list of accomplishments.
 
TommyG said:
All I can say is a group of pilots and owners are having a dispute with an airport. The airport changed a long standing agreement and went to an extreme amount of money from these tenants. They called AOPA, and was told they can’t do much to help them.
Click to expand...
I have heard the same story many times. AOPA tells the pilots to self organize and take care of the issue. But they are happy to fly their planes and attend meetings to discuss things.
 
Bob Noel said:
perhaps, but way too many people think the large check written for a manager guarantees them anything. Just think about how many high-priced "managers" have driven companies into the toilet.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Just because it's hard to find an effective manager does not mean AOPA has one. It's so easy to convince people they are trying hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top