How can we "encourage" AOPA to do better?

[flyingron]

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

I don't given AOPA credit for much if any of that. I was on the line to get the DC area airspace opened having been at VKX on 9/11 and I can tell you AOPA didn't do squat for that. In fact, they're handling of the ADIZ/SFRA was completely incompetent and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how the systems work.

About the only thing I'd have given a plug nickel for was Dickie McSpadden and the ASF but that's probably languishing since he's gone.

 

[Half Fast]

They lack the NRA's funding.

And firepower.

 

[Half Fast]

Advertise to the moneybags, and screw these aspirational poors complaining from outside the chain link fence. Get rich sucker, then come talk to us. Real inviting.

Oh brother.

Nobody is saying "screw these aspirational poors" and most pilots I know are quite happy to talk with interested people, take them flying, answer questions, etc. But relying on people who can't afford it to be the salvation of GA is a losing bet.

What's the logic in advertising to people who can't afford the price of entry? Aviation isn't unique; there are many expensive hobbies. Auto racing, technical diving, horse showing, mistresses, etc. I don't think anyone is trying to persuade "aspirational poors" to buy a Porsche and go sports car racing. Why should aviation do so? Why not fish where there are fish instead of in an empty pond?

Sure, let's try to bring the cost down. There's no reason not to pursue both. But reducing aviation cost has been a losing proposition for many decades and counting on cost reductions to bring more people into flying is very unlikely to succeed.

 

[Corin]

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

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

Yup. We should be marketing to the people that buy middle-aged people that buy luxury cars/high-end sports cars like a Corvette. After all, what is cooler than owning a sportscar? Owning an airplane.

 

[MIFlyer]

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

How many landings a year do you do? 20?\50? At $20 each it’s a rounding error in the budget. Most flyers will only hit these a couple times a year anyway


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Stevel]

I might start supporting the AOPA again if they can convince me that they will no longer waste my meager contribution on efforts to get me to give more.

 

[MountainDude]

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

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

Here is how effective NATA was against AOPA:

AOPA vs NATA

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 -...

www.pilotsofamerica.com

- 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

 

[MountainDude]

Yes, they are actively involved on this issue

What have they accomplished? I am not asking 1. what they are saying or 2. what they are trying to accomplish.
Thank you

 

[MountainDude]

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

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

- Martin

Martin, I am a big fan of yours and agree with your statements (AOPA is better than nothing).
However, my argument is that they can and should be doing a lot more for $50M per year.

 

[MichiPilot]

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

another unpopular opinion coming: pilots are the whiniest bunch of people on the planet. I don't like paying fees either, but an airport collecting fees to support the airport's operation is hardly some evil money grab. How do we all think the airport is funded? How do we think airports pay match on a grant if applicable? Then at the same time we get ornery when a city decides to close an airport...

 

[Dana]

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

But how many of those 1-2% were out there taking a young eagles flight because they or their parents were already interested in aviation (or the parent is a pilot) anyway?

 

[Pugs]

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

Agreed on the cost issue and for many families the money to spend on aviation is competing against every other rising cost.

I’m convinced that the answer is clubs and partnerships and I’d like to see AOPA start to help. Yes, they have a good guy helping with clubs but there should be a club column every month in the magazine. “How to” form a club, how to run a club etc. I’ve been in three and two have been great but there are many pitfalls as with any organization and helping to enable a well run club and even helping people find partners would get a lot more people into airplane ownership.

 

[AV8R_87]

But how many of those 1-2% were out there taking a young eagles flight because they or their parents were already interested in aviation (or the parent is a pilot) anyway?

For at least some of them, that YE flight is the spark that ignites the powder.

 

[Clip4]

AOPA is the NRA of Aviation.

The NRA was fined $ 2.5 million in NY for selling unlicensed insurance products and the CEO found liable in a corruption case and ordered to pay $4.5 million in restitution.

While I disagree with their staff’s use of a business jet, I don’t think they are as bad as the NRA.

 

[MBDiagMan]

As sad as it is, GA is dying. There are many reasons for it, but it’s dying. At the age of 75, I won’t be far behind.

AOPA is spurring a dead horse.

 

[Ventucky Red]

We vote with our wallets - right?

 

[Daleandee]

But how many of those 1-2% were out there taking a young eagles flight because they or their parents were already interested in aviation (or the parent is a pilot) anyway?

A bit off the topic but our last Young Eagles event discovered a couple of kids that really didn't want to fly but the parents wanted them to fly, "because it was free."

 

[kgruber]

I quit AOPA when they closed the "red" board.

 

[MauleSkinner]

A bit off the topic but our last Young Eagles event discovered a couple of kids that really didn't want to fly but the parents wanted them to fly, "because it was free."

I had a student who only took lessons because his dad wanted him to become a pilot. He wasn’t exceptionally motivated.

 

[Daleandee]

I had a student who only took lessons because his dad wanted him to become a pilot. He wasn’t exceptionally motivated.

Probably felt like he didn't want to let his parents down but as you noted they won't have the desire or drive needed to excel. We certainly don't fly any child against their will but do let them know if they change their mind they are always welcome to return and go for a ride. I find it important to emphasize that there are many more careers in aviation than being a pilot ...

 

[Ed Haywood]

I am at a private airfield that is very visible alongside a busy road in an area with a lot of growth. Two or three times a week, a young person in their late teens or early 20's wanders in to ask about becoming a pilot.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Sure, let's try to bring the cost down.

To me, that's where EAA comes in, and why I support them with membership.

I do think they should change their name to the Recreational Aviation Association to better describe their constituency and be a little less scary to newcomers.

AOPA could change their name to Business Airplane Owners and Pilots Association and then we would have truth in advertising.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

Yup. We should be marketing to the people that buy middle-aged people that buy luxury cars/high-end sports cars like a Corvette. After all, what is cooler than owning a sportscar? Owning an airplane.

You have just defined the Cirrus business plan. And it worked.

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

Here is how effective NATA was against AOPA:

AOPA vs NATA

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 -...

www.pilotsofamerica.com

- 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

AOPA CEO salary $1.6m? is this correct? between this and their jet im surprised the lights are on. Should read Orwell:s Animal Farm.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

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

Sure, lots of us old white dudes. But two of my students are in high school and one has been amazingly successful in getting grants and scholarships to pay for her training. I work at an active flight training facility with 30+ active students and seven CFIs (I am the only one part time). Five Cessna trainers that are busy most of the time. GA is alive and well here.

 

[MichiPilot]

Now's your chance nerds! https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/december/09/longtime-trustee-named-aopa-chairman

Oh wait, everything occurred already and another rich dude was picked.

 

[Daleandee]

I do think they should change their name to the Recreational Aviation Association to better describe their constituency and be a little less scary to newcomers.

Yep. Sometimes when you tell a parent that their child will be flying in a plane you built yourself ...

 

[midwestpa24]

I've debated commenting on this thread, but here it goes.

We often hear GA is dying. And nationwide stats don't lie. But at my airport GA is booming. Our FBO's instructors are as busy as they want to be. Not with kids wanting to be airline pilots, but local young and middle age folks. These folks are buying airplanes that never had them before. We can't build hangars fast enough, both public and private.

The difference, our local GA community! They are huge advocates. Not a VFR weekend goes by that there aren't aircraft flying around the area, from Champs to warbirds flying formation hops. There is a well known monthly event hosted entirely by the local pilot community. They are telling their friends and drawing more people in.

There is nothing AOPA can do to grow the GA community, we have to do it ourselves. Flying will never be cheap, but it is still more than obtainable for even the working class with some budgeting. When is the last time you invited non-pilot friends to the airport?

 

[Ed Haywood]

Yep. Sometimes when you tell a parent that their child will be flying in a plane you built yourself ...

Don't worry, it's experimental. An amateur built it!

 

[Daleandee]

Don't worry, it's experimental. An amateur built it!

"Homemade" is the word ...

 

[jsstevens]

"Homemade" is the word ...

Lovingly hand crafted.

 

[Barrett50]

All I've seen from AOPA since the late 80s has been all carrot and no stick. The loss of airspace to small GA has been both dramatic and relentless. More R blocks, more MOAs, restrictions on leaving the country by air or get fined, and now public identification of owner/operator of small GA everytime we push the throttle in. There is and never has been a reason to publish the owner/operator of aircraft operating in the NAS. Limitation of altitudes from 10,000-17,999. It's all a theme that the AOPA will write millions of lines of crap, and make pretty web links, and talk to pilots at seminars. But they have ZERO footprint in the making of law, or restricting the expansion of the police state taking over the NAS from small GA.

Every president since 1983 has been a twin jet operator who likely has a hard-on for the spam can proletariat that he used to be, and has now gone upscale. They don't give a wet dribbly shilt about anything smaller than a King Air, with anything less than a twin comm inst rating.

I'd like to give a long list of ways and means AOPA could actually fight for small GA, but the best thing that could happen now is for everyone to abandon them and see their budget shrink to zero, as they fade away and die. I've considered someone like me just retiring starting a new org that caters to the real GA pilots. Make up a new banner, new focus, and new membership that is all pilots who don't own, can't fly a King Air, and don't have a turbine twin rating, and no inst ticket, but maybe a comm rating. However, if the member advances to a comm rating, they only get half vote representation and half price dues(See, spur advancement at the same time reducing their influence).

I'll get right on this, after another 6 pack of PBRs.

 

[MountainDude]

I've debated commenting on this thread, but here it goes.

We often hear GA is dying. And nationwide stats don't lie. But at my airport GA is booming. Our FBO's instructors are as busy as they want to be. Not with kids wanting to be airline pilots, but local young and middle age folks. These folks are buying airplanes that never had them before. We can't build hangars fast enough, both public and private.

The difference, our local GA community! They are huge advocates. Not a VFR weekend goes by that there aren't aircraft flying around the area, from Champs to warbirds flying formation hops. There is a well known monthly event hosted entirely by the local pilot community. They are telling their friends and drawing more people in.

There is nothing AOPA can do to grow the GA community, we have to do it ourselves. Flying will never be cheap, but it is still more than obtainable for even the working class with some budgeting. When is the last time you invited non-pilot friends to the airport?

It's great there are airports with that kind of a boom.
However, this thread is not about grass root efforts in GA; this thread is focused on our representative organization that spends $50M per year and does not do simple things that would slow down the decline of GA.

 

[TCABM]

If you really want AOPA to advocate for something you want, make a nine digit deposit in their bank account.

 

[ateamer]

Don't worry, it's experimental. An amateur built it!

The Titanic was built by professionals. Noah’s Ark was built by an amateur.

 

[wsquare]

Lack of meaningful AOPA engagement to fight landing feee — yeah, they wrote a letter or two. Most airports have already been paid for using public money, paid by aviators thru av fuel tax revenue, among other tax sources. Aviation already paying its fair share to support airports thru taxation.

Now, some private company (maybe Vector) wants to step in on the public infrastructue, and levy another tax on aviation, that may, or may not, make its way back to a beneficial use (likely only a small fraction, with the majority of fees going to line the pockets of private companies).

Nice business model - I see a well used road, public infrastructure, and put up some license readers, and start sending bills to people that drive on the roadway. Of course, I forget that some folks on PoA are probably involved in such companies, or airports that have these fleecing systems, and thus belittle those that ask why AOPA isn’t doing more to fight landing fees. Maybe the voting poll should be “Do you like paying, or do you want to pay, additional fees to land at a publicly owned airfield?” Initially, its only $10 per landing, but in a few years it will increase to $30 per landing, and then $50 per landing. Please answer Yes, or No to the poll. Thank you for your vote.

 

[ateamer]

Now, some private company (maybe Vector) wants to step in on the public infrastructue, and levy another tax on aviation, that may, or may not, make its way back to a beneficial use (likely only a small fraction, with the majority of fees going to line the pockets of private companies).

Nice business model - I see a well used road, public infrastructure, and put up some license readers, and start sending bills to people that drive on the roadway.

Vector isn’t just doing it in its own. They’re under contract to the cities and counties that own the airports. Same with toll roads.

 

[wsquare]

Alright @ateamer. “ I’m Vector, and I’ve got a deal for you. You let me in on a contract to install my equipment, on your publically funded airport, and I’ll give you a bunch of “free” money. You don’t have to do anything, but sit back and collect the checks. Don’t worry that the airport was paid for, and is currently supported, with tax dollars already collected from Av fuel sales and other taxing authority. All you have to do, Mr Airport Manager, is sit back, and we do all the work. Then, money magically appears in your account. Don’t worry that we give you 10% of the landing fees, after all, it takes a lot of time to send bills, and even the 10% is “free money” for your publically funded airport. Don’t worry, the pilots don’t mind paying your airport landing fees. After all, its only $10 per landing. Of course, we won’t tell the airport users that the fee is increasing to $20/landing next year, and $30/landing the following year. But you will get more free money when we increase the fees. All you have to do is sign this contract, for the free money.”

Free and easy money, who’s not going to sign the contract? Now, I will go on record that if this type of funding model results in a decrease in Av fuel taxes, in an amount equal to landing fees paid, then perhaps AOPA doesn’t need to engage on the issue. But I think we all know if Av fuel taxes change at all, they’re going up, not down. And thus, just as AOPA engaged agressively to fight ATC fees, for using the publically funded airspace, so should AOPA engage agressively in fighting landing fees at publically funded airports.

BTW, the web page for Vector used to show uAvionix as a business partner. Once this was pointed out and discussed critically on another aviation blog, the uAvionix logo magically disappeared from the Vector web site. Keep in mind that an ADSB is an enabling technology for landing fees, and follow the money. Maybe AOPA is also following the money? Their lack of agressive engagement to fight landing fees, is telling me something. $$$$$$ I hope I’m wrong, but time will tell all.

 

[Dana]

Don't worry, it's experimental. An amateur built it!

 

[MichiPilot]

Most airports have already been paid for using public money, paid by aviators thru av fuel tax revenue, among other tax sources. Aviation already paying its fair share to support airports thru taxation.

i believe it's possible you are unclear how an airport is funded.