My Comments in response are in BLUE...Thx for your note. I really appreciate your perspectives.
Thank you George for responding to this thread. It does mean something to me that you have the cajones to come on this forum and address the angry mob.
With that being said, I read the AOPA article/annual report last night in my AOPA Pilot magazine and have to say that a certain amount of it sounded like lip service. While I appreciate the desire to stay "positive" I'd hardly agree that "the future of GA again looks bright" as stated in the article.
Most of us DO support the AOPA's legislative efforts with regards to 3rd Class Medical reform, FAA reauthorization, Non-TSO and Part 23 reform, saving airports, and keeping avgas relatively affordable with the transition to unleaded fuel. These issues are important to me and are a primary reason I'm an automatically-renewing member. But I"m still concerned about what I consider to be a loss of focus by the organization.
First on my list of things to drop would be the AOPA Online Flight Planner and the AOPA Go Mobile App. These resources have been in a constant state of change for as long as I can remember and I have to wonder how many people actually use them. I'd bet that the vast majority of us either use Foreflight, Wing-X Pro, Garmin Pilot, or similar to plan our flights.
I agree the development process for these flight planning member benefits has been sorted and sometimes not without controversy. In their current form they do not compete with G/FF/WX, but compliment them. Also AOPA's desktop planner has undergone some significant upgrades in the past few months and with the fuel planning features and the airport screening functions its a phenomenal "free" tool for members to use. Planning a flight on a iPad isn't always ideal. Sometimes I like to use my desktop computer to do destination research and a computer works best for that. The coolest thing the flight planner does now is allows pilots to load their AOPA flight plan directly into FF and WingX, so you don't have to do it twice. Check out the tutorial.
Next thing is the National Aviation Community Center. Why does the AOPA "host weddings, social gatherings, corporate meetings, Cub Scout camps, and paper airplane contests"? I appreciate the effort to engage youngsters with aviation but the EAA's Young Eagles program seems much more productive than any AOPA effort.
This is free to all members and serves as a "best practice" for others at other airports to emulate. Making the airport a social center brings people and interest to the airport. It creates a sense of community. Since the NACC was launched we'ed had about a dozen airports and large hanger owners emulate what we've done. So if your company needs an free location to hold an offsite and your an AOPA member give us a call.
And when the AOPA states that you have "a group of dedicated staff members... to solidify corporate partnerships and other relationships" it gives a lowly Mooney driver like me a cause for concern. If the "corporate partnerships" influenced Garmin to sell G3X Instrument Suites to M20 owners at Experimental prices then I might say okay, but it sure sounds a lot more like time-on-the-golf-course to me.
Not sure where your quoting that from but I can tell you our focus is on our members...especially those of us who fly small planes just like I do.
Another cause for concern regards drones. In addition to advocacy for the "safe integration of drones" the AOPA is now "expanding on those efforts with plans to offer educational resources for drone operators under the banner of its You Can Fly initiative." I'm not sure that teaching people how to fly toy aircraft should be an AOPA mission. And if they're flying them commercially they should certainly pay for their own training.
AOPA wants to protect GA's airspace access. Since drones and the aircraft we fly will share the national airspace system we have to be here to look after GA's interests. Also You Can Fly is a family of programs that includes Rusty Pilots (1500 pilots back flying again) Flying Clubs (25 new Clubs in the past 18 months) and our high school initiative that focuses on providing aviation based STEM to expose high school aged youth to aviation...and yes some of that involves the use of drones b/c kids love the things and if it sparks there interest then it may become a pathway to a real plane.
This post is getting long so I'll end by addressing the issue of salaries. I've met Mr. Baker a couple of times now and he seems like a fine man and a good advocate for aviation, but I'm not sure that a similarly good advocate couldn't be recruited from the pilot population. Perhaps someone such as a successful retiree might be interested in representing our interests for a lesser wage. If the ~$800,000 salary quoted is correct that accounts for nearly 5% of membership dues and subscriptions, and is almost 17% of AOPA's entire management and general expenses (as reported in the 2015 financial statement).
Mark comes with one hell of an impressive business pedigree. And in order to be effective when you engage with congressmen, senators industry leaders etc its important to have the right person in the job. Again, whether its EAA or AOPA's leadership compensation if they are effective then its worth the money. ,
Lastly, I don't begrudge corporate America from conducting their business utilizing a fleet of sophisticated and expensive corporate jets; I believe their existence is a net benefit to aviation as a whole. But I do believe that AOPA devotes a disproportionate amount of resources to keeping corporate aviation out of the public's cross-hairs. Meanwhile us little guys who simply love flying, and who pay a sizable portion of our monthly income on planes, maintenance, hangars, insurance, and avgas are left wondering why we keep getting weekly mailers from the AOPA PAC, etc. begging for more cash.
I'm a "little guy too" And the expenses I pay to operate my mooney come out of pocket and only through 20 years of saving while I was in the Navy and the sale of a home at the height of the market was I able to afford the Mooney Eagle I fly now. Many of us own airplanes (SE piston) so we know first hand what owners of light GA aircraft endure to keep them well fed and maintained. Yes AOPA uses a jet aircraft. But I can tell you there are strict rules on how its dispatched. 1. it's always full - saving on airline travel costs and additional cost associated with more days in a hotel, more rental cars, perdiem etc. 2. Its only used when the cost benefits of launching make sense. 3. The trip distance / time calculation has to be justified. Could we get by without it...yes probably. Does it make us more effective and efficient (just like thousands of businesses) it certainly does.