Rude Call from AOPA Foundation

JoseCuervo;1950671[B said:
]You don't end up with long term relationships [/B]and you find the vendors willing to work with you charge you for the "pleasantries" of the relationship.
Click to expand...

Wanna bet ?:dunno:
 
GeorgePerry said:
Jose,

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am the person in charge of both the Foundation and Air Safety Institute. You have my word I will look into the matter and make sure the problem is remedied. I apologize if the caller was rude and for the inconvenience.

As others on the forum have pointed out that the AOPA Foundation and the Air Safety institute do a lot of good for general aviation and all of our programs including Safety Seminars and over 300 safety education products (courses, videos, webinars, quizes, safety alerts and the Nall report etc) are free to all pilots...and are all funded through tax deductible donations.

The foundation also provides funding for programs such as "Rusty Pilots" that has provided BFR ground school to over 5000 pilots since its inception and the AOPA regional Fly-In's that have been attended free of charge by nearly 30,000 pilots and spectators. And so while the methods required to fund these important programs can sometimes be an annoyance they are necessary to help keep them viable.

I agree that telemarketers can be a PITA...Esp if they are rude. As others have mentioned, telemarketing is just one of the ways we touch base to ask for support and AOPA does outsource this to a third party provider. So if they go "off script" and act in an unprofessional way I want to know about it so I can fix it. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention.

Lastly I wanted to address some of the "legacy" perceptions about AOPA. I've been with AOPA for a little over a year. I joined AOPA not for a "fat" salary (I could make much more with a Major Airline or Box Hauler)...but because I love flying and aviation safety has been my life's work. And as someone who's watched the organization go through good times and bad, I can tell you AOPA is getting better, esp. at listening. No organization is perfect and AOPA has certainly made its share of mistakes in the past. But what I can tell you that every one who works at AOPA is passionate about flying just like you and we are committed to serving our members and doing everything we can to make GA a better place for all pilots.

Happy to talk off line if you'd like...Or to anyone who feels AOPA has room for improvement. I'm happy to listen and do what I can to make things better.

Safe Flights
George Perry
AOPA
Click to expand...


So... I was working on some hangar doors today at the airport and as I head back to the FBO to get some supplies, I see N4GA... sitting on the ramp.... Yup,, The NEW jet.....

Just as I was going to ask the people who got off of it the simple question of " Why does AOPA's jet NOT have ANY decals / markings/ identifying Logos on it.. The group drove off in their rental SUV....

You would figure a GA friendly ORG would want maximum exposure for their cause.. But flying around in a jet with NO markings seems kinda bizarre,, At least to me.. And as a member for 35 years.. It would be nice to see AOPA advertise it presence.. And its assets...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:..

Oh yeah.... For a ORG with 85 million in cash reserves. it appears the CEO has a NICE ( untaxed) perk.... You would think they could afford 500 dollars worth of Vinyl decals for the new jet...:yes:

That plane has been ALL over recently..

Probably a bunch of AOPA functions...:no::no::no:...:mad2:


https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N4GA
 
How many corporate business jets have their logo prominently displayed?
 
2318492.jpg
fiveoboy01 said:
How many corporate business jets have their logo prominently displayed?
Click to expand...

Just about EVERY NASCAR team..... And various other groups too...... I see ALOT of biz jets with logo's on them here....:yes::yes:

1541243.jpg




imgres
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
So... I was working on some hangar doors today at the airport and as I head back to the FBO to get some supplies, I see N4GA... sitting on the ramp.... Yup,, The NEW jet.....

Just as I was going to ask the people who got off of it the simple question of " Why does AOPA's jet NOT have ANY decals / markings/ identifying Logos on it.. The group drove off in their rental SUV....

You would figure a GA friendly ORG would want maximum exposure for their cause.. But flying around in a jet with NO markings seems kinda bizarre,, At least to me.. And as a member for 35 years.. It would be nice to see AOPA advertise it presence.. And its assets...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:..

Oh yeah.... For a ORG with 85 million in cash reserves. it appears the CEO has a NICE ( untaxed) perk.... You would think they could afford 500 dollars worth of Vinyl decals for the new jet...:yes:

That plane has been ALL over recently..

Probably a bunch of AOPA functions...:no::no::no:...:mad2:


https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N4GA
Click to expand...

Maybe someone at AOPA recognizes that the jet is a ridiculous extravagance.
 
I quit AOPA because I called on multiple occasions asking to stop calling me and stop sending me mail. Each piece of mail they send me probably cost close to $2 I was getting about three a month. probably close to $75 a year in mail... Over double the cost of my membership. My quiting is in itself a donation.
 
AOPA has a new jet??!!!?
 
fiveoboy01 said:
How many corporate business jets have their logo prominently displayed?
Click to expand...

Too many. That's how you can figure out there's a corporate merger about to take place - the predator's jet is in town. :wink2:
 
N801BH said:
So... I was working on some hangar doors today at the airport and as I head back to the FBO to get some supplies, I see N4GA... sitting on the ramp.... Yup,, The NEW jet.....

Just as I was going to ask the people who got off of it the simple question of " Why does AOPA's jet NOT have ANY decals / markings/ identifying Logos on it.. The group drove off in their rental SUV....

You would figure a GA friendly ORG would want maximum exposure for their cause.. But flying around in a jet with NO markings seems kinda bizarre,, At least to me.. And as a member for 35 years.. It would be nice to see AOPA advertise it presence.. And its assets...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:..

Oh yeah.... For a ORG with 85 million in cash reserves. it appears the CEO has a NICE ( untaxed) perk.... You would think they could afford 500 dollars worth of Vinyl decals for the new jet...:yes:

That plane has been ALL over recently..

Probably a bunch of AOPA functions...:no::no::no:...:mad2:


https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N4GA
Click to expand...

I saw an AOPA light piston single (it may have been a 210) on the mx ramp at IWS a few months back. It had a few AOPA decals on it. They weren't the size of the door or anything, but they were legible from 30 feet away where I was driving past.
 
N801BH said:
So... I was working on some hangar doors today at the airport and as I head back to the FBO to get some supplies, I see N4GA... sitting on the ramp.... Yup,, The NEW jet.....

Just as I was going to ask the people who got off of it the simple question of " Why does AOPA's jet NOT have ANY decals / markings/ identifying Logos on it.. The group drove off in their rental SUV....

You would figure a GA friendly ORG would want maximum exposure for their cause.. But flying around in a jet with NO markings seems kinda bizarre,, At least to me.. And as a member for 35 years.. It would be nice to see AOPA advertise it presence.. And its assets...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:..

Oh yeah.... For a ORG with 85 million in cash reserves. it appears the CEO has a NICE ( untaxed) perk.... You would think they could afford 500 dollars worth of Vinyl decals for the new jet...:yes:

That plane has been ALL over recently..

Probably a bunch of AOPA functions...:no::no::no:...:mad2:


https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N4GA
Click to expand...

It isn't new -- they've had that plane for 10+ years.
 
MichiPilot said:
It isn't new -- they've had that plane for 10+ years.
Click to expand...


CJ-3+....:confused:

If it is the same one..... It has a NICE , shiny new paint job.....

And NO AOPA markings on it...:no:..

For a Org that is huge in self promotion... The lack of self identity is puzzling... IMHO....YMMV...
 
They should do an article series on their jet upgrades. Same kind of stories they do with the piston junk they raffle to the peasants.
 
MichiPilot said:
It isn't new -- they've had that plane for 10+ years.
Click to expand...

Yep, It was a Phil Boyer extravagance when he decided the King Air or whatever he had before wasn't sufficiently fitting with his self-perceived stature.
 
airdale said:
AOPA has a new jet??!!!?
Click to expand...


They have had that jet for a number of years. Nothing new there.

They fly all over in a jet, pay their folks HUGE salaries, they give execs HUGE parachutes, AND they have millions in the bank. But they continue a relentless pursuit for more cash. That is why I quit.

Part 23 rewrite stalled, 3rd class medical limping along..so they throw this 'you aren't supporting GA' at us but when we ask why don't they take a pay cut in the tough times when to help support GA, crickets. Put fundraising energy into passing these two things which WILL move GA forward.

Read up on what the outgoing execs were paid. Fuller got 800k a year? Rudinger and Haines well over 200k...in fact I believe over 300k. Board member benefits...all from your dues.

Notice the regional fly-ins are fewer in number in 2016? They keep cutting the number and soon we will be back to one or two, which is where we started. AOPA Live programs used to be close to 30 minutes in length - the most recent was 11 or 12 minutes in length.

AOPA has lost touch, but can you send us a check? We don't have enough $$ and need your donation TODAY.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
How many corporate business jets have their logo prominently displayed?
Click to expand...


You walked right into that one...

8f14ed698b24a40c2194515d06c45ce9.jpg


flyingron said:
Yep, It was a Phil Boyer extravagance when he decided the King Air or whatever he had before wasn't sufficiently fitting with his self-perceived stature.
Click to expand...


I never minded Boyer. Met him numerous times and every time he was in town the local newsies did multiple TV articles on GA. He actually did keep GA in front of the press back when he was there.

Craig? Saw him eating something and doing carefully scripted interviews at OSH once. Never saw him on the road tour and know he only came to Colorado once.

Whoever they have now? Don't even know their name.

They're sliding into lost history with little more than a peep.

When I challenged one of the Twombly [sp] named people about why they had "Owners" in their name, I got a very dissatisfying response.

I was picking on the "Better than new 182" prize aircraft saying it was an excellent opportunity to detail out exactly what they had done to it, complete with price tags, and reviews of the products, so an "Owner" of one of the most popular GA singles could determine for themselves if the upgrades were worth it, and exactly where to have them done. Toss in a "this year only" discount on those products and the shops that donated all that time and gear would have been booked a year or two out.

If the point of those donations was to SELL people the upgrades and rebuild work, then SELL. Don't just parade around a prize airplane with crap added to it and no price tags or info on where to go get those "great things" done to YOURS.

But they knew the price tag was outrageous and not feasible nor fiscally responsible ownership behavior, for a thirty year old or more aircraft. The "upgrades" cost far more than the entire aircraft.

I didn't even get the courtesy of a lie... "Good idea, we'll look into publishing that information!"

That was the turning point for me with them. Then I started watching the ads and articles closer and realized half of them were keeping the Yodice family paid. Not that they're bad people or anything, but the Legal thing, the Medical thing, almost all of it led back to feeding the lawyers.

The "lifestyle" stuff under Craig was a joke and most of their members appropriately made fun of it. If it were the only problem, it's be forgivable. No AOPA, we aren't all wealthy pilots buying PC-12s and cruising around in sports cars at grass strips with supermodels, headed off to "wine country" for the weekend. (Or even if we are, we won't admit it. Ha. It's not PC to have that kind of money in America anymore. Success is failure. Just ask Bernie. LOL!)

So anyway... Boyer was at least "out there". He also flew himself regularly to here and described the weather and decision making process as a side thing to his town halls... Which most of us enjoyed hearing how he got around in a single.

I don't care AT ALL if they have a jet. Not in the slightest. What I care about is their efficacy at what they claim to do. With numerous "losses" at the political games, where they're supposedly the pros, and very little substance behind keeping aviation not just alive, but vibrant, let alone actually fighting the high costs of certification or doing much of anything but printing glossy ads and selling insurance you can buy elsewhere for the same price, and legal services that amount to them looking up a local attorney in the Rolodex and allowing you to hire said attorney for his full normal going rate...

What do they really offer? Baseball caps?
 
Mason said:
Yeah, it's really stupid for an organization that promotes aviation to actually make use of it.
Click to expand...
It actually is, because their flying demonstrates that jets are toys of the rich. And, by extension, all private airplanes are the toys of the rich. Exactly the image that we need, right?

Mark Baker's home town is Minneapolis, hence he gets rides to ANE. Jackson Hole? Another "business" trip I'm sure.

There is a reason why Warren Buffet named his jet "The Indefensible." And his time is infinitely more valuable than that of a bunch of bozos running a mid-grade, single location, nonprofit association.

Baker has a professional history of running dying companies, though I don't think all of the failures were his fault. But I did hope that his experience had taught him how to control costs. I guess not. At least not when he can call up a private jet whenever he wants to take a ride.

here is a concept called "normalization of deviance." Basically the idea is that if you deviate from standard practice (like responsible cost control) frequently enough, eventually you no longer recognize it as deviance. I think we are there.
 
airdale said:
It actually is, because their flying demonstrates that jets are toys of the rich. And, by extension, all private airplanes are the toys of the rich. Exactly the image that we need, right?

Mark Baker's home town is Minneapolis, hence he gets rides to ANE. Jackson Hole? Another "business" trip I'm sure.

There is a reason why Warren Buffet named his jet "The Indefensible." And his time is infinitely more valuable than that of a bunch of bozos running a mid-grade, single location, nonprofit association.

Baker has a professional history of running dying companies, though I don't think all of the failures were his fault. But I did hope that his experience had taught him how to control costs. I guess not. At least not when he can call up a private jet whenever he wants to take a ride.

here is a concept called "normalization of deviance." Basically the idea is that if you deviate from standard practice (like responsible cost control) frequently enough, eventually you no longer recognize it as deviance. I think we are there.
Click to expand...


Of course they are. I don't care at all if "the rich" have jets. Bring on more of "the rich".

AOPA's problems aren't rooted in their jet. Hell they should have a fleet of aircraft. Because their work is so good that flying is highly regarded, safe, and efficient. And aircraft owners get great use out of them.

Class warfare is BS. Who cares? It's about whether the "upper class" gets their job done, as much as we get ours done.

If they're freaking lazy and losing every battle they claim to fight, that's the problem. Not their jet.
 
Last edited:
So they're flying this jet all over. Ok. Where are they going and how is it representing GA?
 
UngaWunga said:
So they're flying this jet all over. Ok. Where are they going and how is it representing GA?
Click to expand...
It *is* GA. I think what some people have heartburn about is that they are flying it around on the members' dime while they may or may not be effective at furthering their causes.
 
Everskyward said:
It *is* GA. I think what some people have heartburn about is that they are flying it around on the members' dime while they may or may not be effective at furthering their causes.
Click to expand...

That's my question. I have no problem with them flying, as long as the flying is business related. Not "hey, we could buy a keychain at the FBO near our ski house and call it a business expense, so let's fly there"...
 
Actually, I just realized that there is now a word for what AOPA has: affluenza

" ... it's the cute, clever term a defense expert coined during [Ethan] Couch's 2013 trial to describe the not-so-cute disorder that had resulted from Couch's privileged upbringing; a disorder that, the defense argued, had coddled him into a sense of irresponsibility and clouded his sense of right and wrong." Dr. Peggy Drexler, Huffington Post 1/22/16
denverpilot said:
... Class warfare is BS. Who cares? ...
Click to expand...
Well, the 60% that pay no federal income tax probably care. Bernie Sanders is polling pretty well with people who care. So, I would say that something like 2/3 of the country cares. Fair? Not fair? Irrelevant question. These people want to tax the rich folks who own airplanes and redistribute that money among themselves.
 
denverpilot said:
You walked right into that one...

8f14ed698b24a40c2194515d06c45ce9.jpg
Click to expand...

Not at all.

Many business jets don't have their company anything on them, and the only way you can tell who owns it is by googling the tail number. Are the majority unmarked? I don't know, but I do know that the Citation sitting 10 feet in front of me on Sunday(Matt Kenseth flew his family in with it, I assume it was a charter) at MSN didn't have any markings on it.... and neither do many of the jets parked there, hangared or transient.

My personal opinion of AOPA aside(which is mixed), don't really see the big deal if their markings aren't on the jet.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Not at all.

Many business jets don't have their company anything on them, and the only way you can tell who owns it is by googling the tail number. Are the majority unmarked? I don't know, but I do know that the Citation sitting 10 feet in front of me on Sunday(Matt Kenseth flew his family in with it, I assume it was a charter) at MSN didn't have any markings on it.... and neither do many of the jets parked there, hangared or transient.

My personal opinion of AOPA aside(which is mixed), don't really see the big deal if their markings aren't on the jet.
Click to expand...



Yep.


We had no logos on ours where I used to work, especially for overseas travel. In fact, we made sure luggage was logo free (no laminated business card tags, no corporate polo shirts.)

Last thing you want to advertise is you are from a deep pocketed US corporation.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Many business jets don't have their company anything on them, and the only way you can tell who owns it is by googling the tail number. Are the majority unmarked? I don't know, but I do know that the Citation sitting 10 feet in front of me on Sunday(Matt Kenseth flew his family in with it, I assume it was a charter) at MSN didn't have any markings on it.... and neither do many of the jets parked there, hangared or transient.
Click to expand...
Some have logos, some don't. The two I can think of which are in-your-face billboards are Oakley and Nike. Others will be painted in the company colors or the N-number will have some relation to the company name. AOPA uses "GA".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top