Flyer topic on all LAA permit aircraft owners needing to be

[Mike Cross]

Well Mike that's not an answer to the question I posed is it? It's a proposal to introduce something else as a replacement.

Do I take it that your proposal is that we get rid of the existing rule and charge more for a Permit if the aircraft is in multiple ownership?

[mikehallam]

Mike, er.. 'Yes'.

After all the LAA is a members' club, not an aeroplane register.
If the LAA is asked to provide a service from its resources to non members who wish to remain non members, then I propose the LAA make a commercial charge for a Permit.
[Just as I assume you agree it's fair for non members to buy our 'in-house' magazine at £5.00 a go, which members get free. ?]

I propose that Permit charges be amended by the EC to equal the current 'in-house' fee plus a multiple of registered owners X £53. A discount of £53 per LAA member would apply.

It also solves the knotty problem of staff or other group members having to act as policemen to coerce those folk with rooted objections into LAA membership.

I'm now rather grateful for you waking me up by offering so many altruistic interventions on behalf of freeloaders .

[flyin'dutch']

Not sure why you think you have to try to belittle folks who have identified a problem and are asking for a resolution thereof.

Ditto for Brian Hope; you may be very busy with extremely important LAA business but the fact that there are paid up LAA members about who are being shortchanged by this rule and your attitude seems that this is something that does not concern you.

If you are part of the LAA hierarchy it is incumbent on you to represent all members, not just who agree with your point of view; others are entitled to theirs and your position is to represent those just as well.

As you can read, some folks have been in touch with the CAA to see if they could transfer the issue of their permits.

That shows 2 things; 1 that these people take the problems as they identify them pretty serious and 2 that if this transfer is not possible that the LAA has a monopoly; if the latter is the case it is paramount that the LAA tries to give these people the best service possible and welcomes them to the club rather than the current attitude that seems to exist that folks who are not paid up members (yet) are somehow freeloaders who need to be brought to heel.

Once again I like to point out that it is paid up members in groups who are made to lose out by this rule.

[Joe Iszard]

Many members are against this rule, very few suggestions as to how the 'problem' should be dealt with - other than scrap it.

Is it not fair that; You enjoy the benefits of an organisation but you don't contribute to that organisation? For me its - you should contribute.

Is there any historic evidence to prove/show that a fully serviceable/compliant aeroplane that has had an application made against it for a permit to fly, should not have that permit issued?

In my view, LAA should find another way of compelling all (flying) owners of an aeroplane to become members, with-holding the issue of a fully paid for permit to fly (I suggest) is not legal.

Joe

[Rod1]

Just branding people who are registered owners of LAA aircraft but not members as freeloaders is rubbish unless you know the individual situation. If you own a single seater and have put your wife down as a part owner. She may not have a licence and cannot ever go up in the aircraft. Is she freeloading?

Rod1

[Chris B]

This issue has been around for a long time now and it appears that the EC has chosen to ignore it and let it fester.

Incidentally, do we have any idea of how many people are currently refusing to join? Is it 2, 10, 20? If it's in this ball park, then I really don't think that the negative PR is worth it.

If we are talking about 100, 200, 300? refusing to join, we have a bit of a PR problem already.

I think most of us agree that the rule is unfair and requires more thought.

As I understand it, the application of the rule and exemptions is the responsibility of the Association, which has delegated responsibility to the EC.

Perhaps the way forward here is to write to the Chairman, cc to the CEO and President, to formally highlight our concerns and seek clarification and justification of the imposition of a rule that is blatantly unfair to those members in groups who cannot convince others in their group to join the Association, retrospectively, - and blackmail to those that would prefer not to join, for whatever reason.

The last thing we need is to go the AGM/Rule Change Route for something that should be sorted very quickly by the EC.

Any thoughts?

Chris B

[flyin'dutch']

Any thoughts?

Could not agree more.

But with attitudes held by the treasurer like these:

I am not going to spend my time debating the modus operandi, or searching through past AGM minutes etc to review how the rule was originally proposed. You are perfectly at liberty to contact the office and ask for past AGM minutes. The EC has considered this rule and overwhelmingly supported it, I see no reason to reconsider it yet again. The 'Bad PR' argument is yet another red herring in my view, I have sought the views of a good many members over the years and almost to a man they cannot see what all the fuss is about.

There is little risk of that actually happening.

[Mike Cross]

I'm glad that Mike recognises that the rule in its current form cannot be enforced without unfairly penalising innocent parties. I hope others can also now recognise it.

[mikehallam]

RE my proposal to make LAA administered Permit Fees additionally a function of non LAA member aircraft owners.

Clearly from the above exchanges one sees that those writing in favour of non LAA members benefitting from my fees will never understand the opposite opinion that all able bodied folk with nose in the trough should fork out for their share too. Red herrings abound !

If we are to feel sorry for members who feel disadvantaged by the rules, then why not first consider even more deserving folk. A higher priority may be to ease the financial imposition of full membership fees on non owners ?
Many LAA members just cannot afford to fly, so in this super fair thinking world you fellows are seeking, how should they be recompensed ?

The one instance of a wife being a registered owner is an exception that doesn't make a rule unworkable. One assumes there are reasons for that split in legal ownership. Registered owners have equity in an a/c and its value per se is enhanced & maintained only by it being kept airworthy. Thus even passive owners receive financial benefit from the existence of the LAA.

The LAA are not AFIK owned, set up & compelled by the State to provide Permits for all & sundry without fair recompense. There's the CAA direct route alternative -- I bet the grizzle is only that it costs more !

Where LAA members are part of a syndicate together with non members, the LAA Permit renewal fees would merely contain a cost element related to non members. Control of outlay & distribution fairness passes directly to the flying owners'group, it's their issue should the non LAA members still insist on not paying.

That IMHO is by far the fairest solution

[Rod1]

MikeH,

“There's the CAA direct route alternative -- I bet the grizzle is only that it costs more !”

Do you have any hard evidence to back this up? According to the CAA web site the cost of a CAA permit renewal is less than an LAA renewal + 4 std memberships. IF this is correct then the majority of the groups I know of would be better off going CAA…

Unfortunately not all LAA aircraft seem to have a CAA alternative. I am still trying to get to the bottom of this and will post when / if I get more.

Your suggestion is better than the current rule, but I think we need more data. We need to know how many groups, what the average number of members is and what the number of non members are. I asked for these years ago and was gob smacked to find out that the rule had been changed with no clue on the numbers!!!!

Rod1

[Mike Cross]

Mikeh

Would you not agree that the ideal would be that:-

Engineering's costs be met entirely out of the fees charged for engineering work. That way the non-flying LAA member is not cross-subsidising work that he derives no benefit from.

Membership subscriptions go to things that all of the membership benefits from. The magazine, events, marketing, and administration (excluding Engineering which should be a separate operating entity).

If you do it that way those who use engineering pay for it and those who do not do not. Seems the fairest way all round to me and I for one would be happy to pay more for my Permit if that's what was required to make it work. (one assumes that in a cost-neutral scenario the quid pro quo of raising the Permit fee would be a lowering of the membership fee so that the overall effect on revenue is neutral)

[Nick Allen]

Engineering's costs be met entirely out of the fees charged for engineering work. That way the non-flying LAA member is not cross-subsidising work that he derives no benefit from.

Mike C, I was in whole-hearted agreement with much of what you've said, until this bit!
We're an association: trying to separate out departments with their own budgets is not, I would suggest, a fruitful way to go. The non-flying member may well derive indirect benefit from Engineering. I think Engineering benefits, overall, from the financial stability that comes from being part of a larger whole.

[Chris B]

I think Mike H is in danger of opening another can of worms and it's slightly getting away from the original problem, the Rule.

The bottom line is that successive ECs have endorsed the cross-subsidation of Engineering for many years, probably in the self interest of the owner/member majority at the time. That is of course the ECs prerogative, providing it makes business sense and enables PFA Ulair to continue to trade.

It is not always smart to cross subsidise, because, if you lose a lot of non core income or costs escalate, you are more likely to be financially exposed. I believe that the PFA has been there before - so it can happen. Perhaps this Rule was implemented as a quick fix to minimise this risk.

So, in context, it is the EC that is looking at the bigger picture. If the Group Ownership rule still makes sense in the bigger picture, please can we have the killer argument (tangible benefits and financial justification) we can take back to those that don't want to join us. Most people can be talked round with sense. Clarity and transparency is required - not back handed deals sorry, exemptions, for certain members.

All we are asking for is that the EC look at this issue and clarify matters. It would be very grown up if they just took it from here without the need for further correspondence.

Again, in context, the LAA and its members get uppity with the CAA when they try to introduce Mode S by the back door. So why should some of us be particularly happy when the LAA intoduce, in effect, retrospective charges, without fore warning, and leave some members in an unpleasant situation with, otherwise, ideal group members. Simply quoting it was all done by the rules is a complete cop out in my view.

Regards,

Chris B

[leiafee]

The 'Bad PR' argument is yet another red herring in my view, I have sought the views of a good many members over the years and almost to a man they cannot see what all the fuss is about.

My emphasis, because as, someone who is a member without an LAA permit aircraft, and with no opinion on way or another about the rule, all I've seen is a public slanging match here, and on Flyer, which does nothing for the credibility of the LAA.

You wouldn't see a professional business behave that way -- do you see car salesmen touting for custom with, "Buy a new car instead of that clapped out heap, you cheapo"?, or Waitrose sticking up posters, "Get in here, and stop skiving off to Tescos, you tasteless slob?"

Too much stick, not enough carrot.