AOPA - To Renew or Not (Side bar)

[GeorgePerry]

This is a new thread to address many of the comments in a lengthy thread on the decision whether or not to renew membership in AOPA.  

 

As many of you know I work at AOPA and lead the Air Safety Institute.  I wanted to thank everyone for their thoughts - the good and the bad.  I wanted to address a couple of themes.  

1. "What's the value in my AOPA membership".  I think there's great value in being an AOPA member.  For less than the price of a steak dinner at a chain restaurant, AOPA provides a host of member services.  The advocacy, the magazine, all the free safety education (courses, quizes, videos webinars etc) an awesome desktop flight planner!  What we've done just in DC:  AOPA has blocked user fees literally dozens of times.  AOPA helped craft the Part 23 rewrite now out as an NPRM.  Pushed back on the high cost of ADS-B equipment with manufacturers and helped get prices down from over 6K to less than 2K in under two years. (these are the same manufacturers that advertise with us, so you can see the commitment to members)  AOPA put a stop to unwarranted CBP searches.   Soon to be complete: Third class medical will get done this year, TIS-B traffic information is on track to be "unblocked" so everyone has access to ADSB Traffic.   Next on the list is getting non-TSO'ed equipment approved for installation into part 23 certified aircraft. 

2. "its a rich guys club".  I think that might have been an accurate assessment under previous leadership, but its not the case now.  When CF was running AOPA I too did not renew.  TIMES HAVE CHANGED!  I can tell you that Mark Baker is one hell of a leader and GA is lucky to have him at the helm of AOPA.  Don't take my word for it - Come to any of the regional fly ins, and you'll see hundreds of small GA aircraft and thousands of members and AOPA staff hanging out at the Friday night party sharing a beer.  We are not elitists...we're pilots just like you.  If AOPA does something that gets under your skin, let me know about it and I'll try to make it right.  

3. "AOPA doesn't listen to its members"  I can tell you nothing is farther from the truth.  When we screw things up or our members have complaints we listen and respond.  As anyone on this board will tell you, the times members have reached out to me with a concern it gets addressed and fixed.  And everyone at AOPA feels the same level of dedication to our members.  When the Jenner issue came out, I can tell you AOPA heard loud and clear that our membership was not happy with it.  As a result additional editorial steps are in place to make sure we serve our members with the highest quality content that provides them information that they'll find useful, information and entertaining.

4. "AOPA's leadership gets paid too much"  I suppose one could argue both sides of that point but I sum it up like this.  If the organization is effective I don't really care what we pay the folks that are fighting for our rights, protecting our freedoms and providing us with great media and safety information.  Also in a competitive market that is looking to attract and keep top talent they have to pay a competitive wage.  Think for a moment what a captain at FedEx or Delta makes.  $300+K a year to essentially drive a bus while working 10-12 days a month.  Many of us, myself included passed on an "easy" airline career to work much longer hours for a lot less money.  We do it because its important, meaningful and we share the passion for general aviation and flying.

5. "I get tired of AOPA hitting me up for money"  This I agree with.  If you don't manage your email subscriptions you'll get lots of solicitations.  But I will say that only about 6% of AOPA members donate anything beyond their dues.  This seems awfully low percentage given the fact that without AOPA fighting for GA we'd probably look like Europe by now.  I am a hat in the ring member and contribute 4 figures every year out of my pocket because I believe in what AOPA is doing.  Also check the magazine that lists all of AOPA's donors - You'll see that all of the senior staff also contributes money out of their pockets to support the mission.  So even though the "asks" can be annoying, its manageable with email controls and AOPA leaders aren't asking for anything they aren't willing to do themselves.

Is AOPA perfect - hell no.  Are we working hard every day to protect GA, make pilots safer and give our members the best benefits in the industry?  ABSOLUTELY!  So if anyone has heartburn with AOPA, please send me a PM and I'm happy to talk with you directly.  I'll do my best to find a solution or explain the background on any issue you feel that we've mishandled.  

Fly Safe!

George

[Andy95W]

Thanks for weighing in, George.  Now if we can just get that Bruce Jenner situation figured out...

[GeorgePerry]

There no denying that this topic is controversial regardless of which side of the issue you chose to take.  Through the lens of providing members content they'll find useful and entertaining, its true that this piece was not well received by the vast majority of our members.  

[Hank]

Just now, GeorgePerry said:

. . . this subject matter was clearly unwise and misguided.  

Clear, succinct and correct. 

AOPA should target pilots, flying, aircraft and systems. Leave the PC crap outside. Bring it into my house at your own risk. I do not accept everyone who believes anything just because; there is right and wrong in my world. Be as individual as you want, I certainly am, but there are and must be community standards, and there are some communities whose open minds do not accept me. But that's fine, I generally don't want to be there, either.

Let's all get back to flying. PC won't cut it in the clouds, where only skill and knowledge matter. Ya'll do the same. Please.

[KSMooniac]

George, thanks a ton for providing a perspective from inside the fence. I'm a 25 year member at my next renewal this fall and appreciate the work AOPA does on our behalf.

I've had a few minor gripes along the way, but not enough to warrant even sending a note. The new leadership looks to be far better focused on doing the job instead of creating wine clubs and other ancillary crap.

We need the medical reform and regulatory relief very soon if we are to survive as an industry. Hopefully AOPA will be able to get those important goals across the finish line.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Danb]

George a good idea starting a new post.

[cnoe]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

[GeorgePerry]

 

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.