Brian,
I do wish you'd stop sniping and belittling members and actually try to benefit by listening once in a while.
From another post re the HQ issue.
"that it would not be in the interests of the members of either association to merge until the matter is resolved."
Legal people give legal advice not commercial advice, What I am suggesting is that both the BMAA and the LAA dissolve and create a new legal entity with newly elected members who are actually pro the proposition. You could even return the excess assets to the membership since you are supposed to be running a not for profit organisation.
If your lawyers didn't suggest such a way forward perhaps it was because you didn't ask them to suggest a way forward because of a lack of appetite for sharing control. From what little information is available the BMAA do not have the impression that the LAA are offering a merger between equals. For the benefit of both memberships please try harder to find a creative solution. I am quite happy to help - I am now working on merging two large banks and doing the terms of reference for part of a set of 120 internal projects that need to be kicked off - I'm not impressed with the LAA treating this little item as a showstopper, it's a Risk; not even an Issue let alone a showstopper and you know it. What we find distasteful is being treated like idiots and palmed of with half baked excuses.
BMAA/LAA merger talks
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Lost opportunity
Reading comments on the BMAA site and on E mail groups (I'm in both) I see we have again lost an opportunity. Stopping progress with an ill thought out public comment has turned many BMAA members away from what was and is a great idea.
Gary's comment:
For the benefit of both memberships please try harder to find a creative solution.
This sums it up for me, the crusty arrogant approach of parts of the PFA will always alienate folk outside the organisation. We should appear as we are, an open and welcoming group of enthusiasts whether those we deal with are inside or outside our membership whether on paper, in press releases or in person.
I fear the recent communications has killed any enthusiasm many BMAA members had and played right into the hands of the sceptics.
Regards, Clive
P.S. £75k on planning permission application and not a stone laid.....
Gary's comment:
For the benefit of both memberships please try harder to find a creative solution.
This sums it up for me, the crusty arrogant approach of parts of the PFA will always alienate folk outside the organisation. We should appear as we are, an open and welcoming group of enthusiasts whether those we deal with are inside or outside our membership whether on paper, in press releases or in person.
I fear the recent communications has killed any enthusiasm many BMAA members had and played right into the hands of the sceptics.
Regards, Clive
P.S. £75k on planning permission application and not a stone laid.....
-
Captain Pulsar
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:20 pm
Re: Lost opportunity
That's a bl**dy disgrace, I wonder who's been receiving the bulk of these fees, eh?P.S. £75k on planning permission application and not a stone laid.....
-
Trevor Lyons
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:24 pm
- Location: Staffordshire
Some observations:
First, it seems that the LAA was unwise to post its news release in the way it did. The secret and unmentionable legal issue was identified in a trice. Would it not have been better to announce that merger negotiations were progressing smoothly, but that the STYX affair would involve some delays, during which time other matters would be settled?
Secondly, perhaps Keith Negal's riposte might have been worded more positively. Again, it seems unwise to blurt out one's reservations in such a public way.
In short, while members of both the LAA and BMAA should be kept informed of progress, we can do without these displays of retrenchment. It is counterproductive for our two organizations to bicker.
As an LAA member, I am desperately keen to see a merger (NOT a takeover); and as a flyer who intends shortly to move from Group A to microlights, I feel no particular tribal loyalty. I just want a single, efficient, democratic organization to represent light aviation; and I am not alone in this.
LAA and BMAA, please do as your members want, and get back to the negotiating table!
First, it seems that the LAA was unwise to post its news release in the way it did. The secret and unmentionable legal issue was identified in a trice. Would it not have been better to announce that merger negotiations were progressing smoothly, but that the STYX affair would involve some delays, during which time other matters would be settled?
Secondly, perhaps Keith Negal's riposte might have been worded more positively. Again, it seems unwise to blurt out one's reservations in such a public way.
In short, while members of both the LAA and BMAA should be kept informed of progress, we can do without these displays of retrenchment. It is counterproductive for our two organizations to bicker.
As an LAA member, I am desperately keen to see a merger (NOT a takeover); and as a flyer who intends shortly to move from Group A to microlights, I feel no particular tribal loyalty. I just want a single, efficient, democratic organization to represent light aviation; and I am not alone in this.
LAA and BMAA, please do as your members want, and get back to the negotiating table!
This is not a good situation,there can be no winners only loosers.
My concern is the fact that most new members attracted to either organisation are undoubtedly drawn into flying by the wide choice of new aircraft available which are seen to be very economic and are either microlights or microlght derived designs.
Whilst I support wholeheartedly the recent advances the LAA have made in their position in european light aviation,it is an undeniable fact that the lighter side of aviation is the only real growth area and therefor will attract the bucks .
It is unreasonable to expect the BMAA to sit on their hands for a year,and my concern is that they will be firmly entrenched in a position that could threaten the very existance of the LAA in a year or two if this merger does not take place.
You only have to go to any fly-in and see what turns up to validate what I have said above and if that is not proof enough, just look at the classifieds to see how many jodels are for sale at the moment,this would have been unthinkable a few years back as they formed the backbone of the entry level PFA 2 seaters, but there are very few skyrangers for sale by comparison!
I urge the EC to reopen negotiations as a matter of urgency.
My concern is the fact that most new members attracted to either organisation are undoubtedly drawn into flying by the wide choice of new aircraft available which are seen to be very economic and are either microlights or microlght derived designs.
Whilst I support wholeheartedly the recent advances the LAA have made in their position in european light aviation,it is an undeniable fact that the lighter side of aviation is the only real growth area and therefor will attract the bucks .
It is unreasonable to expect the BMAA to sit on their hands for a year,and my concern is that they will be firmly entrenched in a position that could threaten the very existance of the LAA in a year or two if this merger does not take place.
You only have to go to any fly-in and see what turns up to validate what I have said above and if that is not proof enough, just look at the classifieds to see how many jodels are for sale at the moment,this would have been unthinkable a few years back as they formed the backbone of the entry level PFA 2 seaters, but there are very few skyrangers for sale by comparison!
I urge the EC to reopen negotiations as a matter of urgency.
With my BMAA Council hat on..
I said right at the start of this process that if the merger was driven by grass roots members then a way forward would be found but whilst the merger is left in the hands of politicians it has not got chance.
Did I read correctly that because no response came back from "The BMAA" and I presume that means Keith "someone" decided that this was reason enough to scupper the talks? Never have I heard such unmitigated twaddle and whoever made that decision should look to their 6 and decide in who's interests, or ego, they are acting.
Two facts.
One - The LAA has a legal issue of more significance than the BMAA at the moment involving a rotorcraft. This did not phase the BMAA.
Two - As probably the most vocal in public let me make it totally clear that I am very pissed off that the talks have floundered. The EC and Council owed it to their members to park ego's and follow the process to the bitter end. I firmly believe that whoever made the call to end the process should be prepared to give a full and frank statement WHY. The statment says nothing about improving the two way communication that is missing and has been missing for a heck of a long time. Just look at when I asked Francis for prop information to assist a BMAA pilot. NO came the reply as this was LAA tech information - being total rot as the information belongs to pilots and I would bet my body weight in rotax pistons that almost any pilot will help any almost any pilot regardless of which association they belong too.
Members of the LAA who care should get themselves to the AGM and make it clear to the EC to make it happen. Had the boot been on the other foot I would be saying the same to BMAA members.
To have come so far and to flounder in such a way is a total bag of spanners - hells bells to end in such a way with no obvious JAW JAW is laying a clear path to WAR WAR and that would be in no-one's best interest.
To say I am pissed off would be a gross understatement. FUBARed.
A huge opportunity missed.
John Moore (BJ)
(some bloke who organises a party on the Isle of Wight).
I said right at the start of this process that if the merger was driven by grass roots members then a way forward would be found but whilst the merger is left in the hands of politicians it has not got chance.
Did I read correctly that because no response came back from "The BMAA" and I presume that means Keith "someone" decided that this was reason enough to scupper the talks? Never have I heard such unmitigated twaddle and whoever made that decision should look to their 6 and decide in who's interests, or ego, they are acting.
Two facts.
One - The LAA has a legal issue of more significance than the BMAA at the moment involving a rotorcraft. This did not phase the BMAA.
Two - As probably the most vocal in public let me make it totally clear that I am very pissed off that the talks have floundered. The EC and Council owed it to their members to park ego's and follow the process to the bitter end. I firmly believe that whoever made the call to end the process should be prepared to give a full and frank statement WHY. The statment says nothing about improving the two way communication that is missing and has been missing for a heck of a long time. Just look at when I asked Francis for prop information to assist a BMAA pilot. NO came the reply as this was LAA tech information - being total rot as the information belongs to pilots and I would bet my body weight in rotax pistons that almost any pilot will help any almost any pilot regardless of which association they belong too.
Members of the LAA who care should get themselves to the AGM and make it clear to the EC to make it happen. Had the boot been on the other foot I would be saying the same to BMAA members.
To have come so far and to flounder in such a way is a total bag of spanners - hells bells to end in such a way with no obvious JAW JAW is laying a clear path to WAR WAR and that would be in no-one's best interest.
To say I am pissed off would be a gross understatement. FUBARed.
A huge opportunity missed.
John Moore (BJ)
(some bloke who organises a party on the Isle of Wight).
John Moore
BMAA Council Member
Coyote912 - but thinks Flexwings are the best.
........................................................................
My posts must not be taken as being representative of the opinion of the BMAA Council.
BMAA Council Member
Coyote912 - but thinks Flexwings are the best.
........................................................................
My posts must not be taken as being representative of the opinion of the BMAA Council.
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
John, whilst it is unfortunate, the facts are simple enough - a merger with the STYX situation unresolved is out of the question because our legal advisers say it could put our funds at risk. To suggest that the gyro issue is remotely as serious a problem is nonsense, and you know it. I'm not going to publicly say why because I have no desire to undermine the BMAA position.
Keith in his Airwaves column, and now you seem intent on painting LAA as the bad guys here. I certainly do not see it that way I'm afraid. LAA's intention is to re-open negotiation when these outstanding issues have been resolved. Do you really believe that LAA was not genuinely wanting for the merger talks to succeed? A lot of effort went into getting as far as we did, we even held off having our AGM until the last possible moment because we wanted to give the talks the best chance we could of coming up with a proposal to put to our members at an AGM.
LAA does not want a divide to develop between it and BMAA, we want to work with BMAA on areas of mutual interest, so please let's rein in our egos a little and not make too many rash statements that might jeopodise that situation further.
Keith in his Airwaves column, and now you seem intent on painting LAA as the bad guys here. I certainly do not see it that way I'm afraid. LAA's intention is to re-open negotiation when these outstanding issues have been resolved. Do you really believe that LAA was not genuinely wanting for the merger talks to succeed? A lot of effort went into getting as far as we did, we even held off having our AGM until the last possible moment because we wanted to give the talks the best chance we could of coming up with a proposal to put to our members at an AGM.
LAA does not want a divide to develop between it and BMAA, we want to work with BMAA on areas of mutual interest, so please let's rein in our egos a little and not make too many rash statements that might jeopodise that situation further.
Paint the LAA as the bad guys - not a bit of it.
Paint some on the LAA EC as the bad guys.. oh yes.. every bit of it. Thats not the BMAA point of view but mine.
I do not agree with your simplification of the rotorcraft case.
Simple question then - if its "just a case of STYX" why was the drawbridge lifted, and it was your decision to do so, rather than sorting out the nitty-gritty issues in anticipation of a conclusion to both our issues (and in the hope that the next one does not come along in the meanwhile)? Why was the CTO of the BMAA poached at a time of sensitivity? Why the name change when the whole could have been done at the same time?
From my perspective the LAA EC have behaved very poorly, crass arrogance to my view, and have, in fact, created a situation where entrenchment and competition between the two associations is very likely. This is a crass waste of money at best and an abuse of presumed power at worst.
I am bloody vexed that this situation has been created.
Shake your "pals" on the LAA EC by the ears and get them back to the table whilst some will still exists.
Short of that lets have the members instruct the EC at the AGM!
I really am bloody annoyed that after finally finding the will to get the two associations around the table that Roger just lifts the stumps and walks.
Poor.. very, very poor indeed.
BJ
Paint some on the LAA EC as the bad guys.. oh yes.. every bit of it. Thats not the BMAA point of view but mine.
I do not agree with your simplification of the rotorcraft case.
Simple question then - if its "just a case of STYX" why was the drawbridge lifted, and it was your decision to do so, rather than sorting out the nitty-gritty issues in anticipation of a conclusion to both our issues (and in the hope that the next one does not come along in the meanwhile)? Why was the CTO of the BMAA poached at a time of sensitivity? Why the name change when the whole could have been done at the same time?
From my perspective the LAA EC have behaved very poorly, crass arrogance to my view, and have, in fact, created a situation where entrenchment and competition between the two associations is very likely. This is a crass waste of money at best and an abuse of presumed power at worst.
I am bloody vexed that this situation has been created.
Shake your "pals" on the LAA EC by the ears and get them back to the table whilst some will still exists.
Short of that lets have the members instruct the EC at the AGM!
I really am bloody annoyed that after finally finding the will to get the two associations around the table that Roger just lifts the stumps and walks.
Poor.. very, very poor indeed.
BJ
John Moore
BMAA Council Member
Coyote912 - but thinks Flexwings are the best.
........................................................................
My posts must not be taken as being representative of the opinion of the BMAA Council.
BMAA Council Member
Coyote912 - but thinks Flexwings are the best.
........................................................................
My posts must not be taken as being representative of the opinion of the BMAA Council.
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Just to put the record straight. At the time of the name change proposal (about August 07) and discussion with Jon Viner about working for LAA (I think about February 2008) there was no discussion about a merger, in fact BMAA had made it perfectly clear some months before that it was an absolute non starter.
-
Nick Allen
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
- Location: Oxford
- Contact:
I'm a little perplexed. The statement posted by the LAA says
The BMAA Chairman is saying that the LAA "has pulled out of merger negotiations", and has "lost the urge to merge". There seems a yawning gap between these positions. Could we have some clarification please?It remains the intention of both Associations to progress merger discussions once this, or any other, legal issues are resolved.
033719
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Nick, I think I've made the LAA's position perfectly clear. It is Keith Negal to whom your question should be addressed, after all it is he that has chosen to take the 'slighted bride' approach to continued dialogue. Maybe he has his own agenda for painting the BMAA as the downtrodden victim of the LAA's brutality and himself as the knight on a charging white stallion - re-election as BMAA chairman perhaps. LAA's view is that the merger discussions are more important than than one man's ego, and as stated several times. this legal issue is a setback, not a complete show stopper.
My tuppence worth?
The STYX issue is a comparatively minor risk. The technical issues raised in the AAIB report are somewhat contencious and many feel the AAIB severely overreached themselves in the report, some of the generalised comments on microlighters view on safety are virtually libelous.
Carrying on with the merger talks would demonstrate an awful lot more good faith than using the issue as an excuse to pull out. The same lawyers would be better employed helping the BMAA/LAA defence than supporting the natural conservatism and status quo of the EC.
The STYX issue is a comparatively minor risk. The technical issues raised in the AAIB report are somewhat contencious and many feel the AAIB severely overreached themselves in the report, some of the generalised comments on microlighters view on safety are virtually libelous.
Carrying on with the merger talks would demonstrate an awful lot more good faith than using the issue as an excuse to pull out. The same lawyers would be better employed helping the BMAA/LAA defence than supporting the natural conservatism and status quo of the EC.
