BMAA/LAA merger talks

Steve Brown · Post by **Steve Brown** » Wed May 21, 2008 12:03 pm

Peter
Very refreshing to see the web update posted on the above. Such brief updates (even if nothing tangible is available or able to be released) are really good and fills the curiosity vacuum and feeds the latent interest of members. Encourages others to keep an eye on the LAA site too.
Thanks

Dave Hall · Post by **Dave Hall** » Wed May 21, 2008 8:09 pm

Yes, thanks very much for taking the trouble to do that, Peter. These updates on important matters are much appreciated.

Graham Newby · Post by **Graham Newby** » Fri May 30, 2008 4:00 pm

A further update has been posted today.

Graham

Trevor Lyons · Post by **Trevor Lyons** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:40 am

The news release of 4th August looks ominous:

"The Association has been advised that due to a legal issue it would not, at the moment, be in the interests of either Association to proceed. The specific issue could well take over a year to resolve. It remains the intention of both Associations to progress merger discussions once this, or any other, legal issues are resolved...

Q1. What is the legal issue?
A1. We are prevented from disclosing or discussing the issue because it may become the subject of a civil action...

Q4. When can we expect more information?
A4. Until the legal issue is resolved, it is unlikely that we will be able to give substantive information .."

It seems quite extraordinary that this legal obstacle is being kept secret; and even odder that it should take 'over a year to resolve'. If the LAA and BMAA have indeed been negotiating in good faith to bury past differences so as to achieve a merger for the pursuit of common goals, I cannot imagine how any legal issue could cause such a breakdown. I feel strongly that we, the LAA (& BMAA) members should not be kept in the dark. We should be fully informed.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:49 am

I feel that unless the legal matter involves one of the LAA officers (or perhaps BMAA) in their private capacity then the members ought to be told or at least have the right to know. Perhaps at the agm if not before.

mikehallam · Post by **mikehallam** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:03 pm

Have a gander at the BMAA forum for reasons, nothing whatsoever to do with a conspiracy to avoid a merger. Just a well known but probably sub-judice case.

Nick Allen · Post by **Nick Allen** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 1:54 pm

But the BMAA forum is also only speculating on the reason... The truth is out there, and will doubtless be revealed in the fullness of time. (My money is on another reason, but that too would be speculation...)

Gary M · Post by **Gary M** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 1:10 am

A quote from the "other side", another PR triumph...

"On a personal note I am very pissed off at being informed of this
decision by a public announcement on a web site rather than via
the communication channels that had been forged and could and
should be built on.. but no Roger Hopkinson decided to play games
and use the LAA web site. Well done, Roger.. not!"

I am not sure I agree that getting on with building an "HQ" for a handfull of employees is more important. I have never understood the logic of building an HQ as if we are property developers, buy one rent one but why build one? With a virtual private network, hooking up phones and databases, 90% of the work could be done at home let alone an HQ!

Gary M · Post by **Gary M** » Sat Aug 09, 2008 11:13 pm

http://www.bmaa.org/upload/misc/2008892 ... rwaves.pdf

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:17 am

The level of frustration in the BMAA chairman's statement is obvious. I think we need more than just the bland statement on our website to justify halting talks. I for one look forward to a new organisation not just a bigger LAA. Anything smelling like a "take over" simply won't get accepted anyway. I emplore EC the re-engage with BMAA at the first opportunity. Why not offer to support them if they are under threat of civil action rather than stand back. We find out who our friends are during times of adversity and this is a good opportunity to demonstrate that.

I must admit I am disappointed the HQ white elephant is back on the agenda especially in the current financial climate. Keith makes a valid point in his statement about proceeding with it without involving his team. It sends the wrong message to BMAA members.

Let's not forget the reason for the merger will not go away. EASA will not wish to deal to two overlapping organisations. This must happen if LAA/BMAA wish to appear attractive to EASA as a future regulator. We should proceed with further talks without delay

My 2p

merlin · Post by **merlin** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 4:57 pm

If the "pending legal Issue" is the styx affair what of legal issues the LAA face ?
Like it or not and I don't, it is unlikely that either organisation will remain legislation free. The world is just too keen to seek financial scapegoats.

So is this a face saving exit ?

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:19 pm

I am saddened that some members seem so quick to decide that their EC must be at fault in the unfortunate cessation of merger talks with the BMAA, and in the manner in which the announcement was posted.
The fact is that Roger's announcement was presented to the top management at BMAA for approval, as per an agreement of both parties that any statements would be jointly agreed. The statement was initially accepted by BMAA management but it was commented that had to be passed around the BMAA Council. A week later there was no negative response so the announcement was posted on the LAA website.
If senior members of the BMAA are "very pissed off at being informed of this decision by a public announcement on a web site rather than via
the communication channels" I suggest it is to their own management and communication structure that they look for the reasons.
LAA did not wish to prejudice the BMAA position in any was so was deliberately vague about the 'legal reason' for the breakdown of talks. However, Keith Negal seems happy enough to reveal the reason so you can read it on the BMAA board.
The simple fact is that our legal advisers have suggested that, in the current situation, a merger of the two associations could put our joint assets at risk. To have continued with such a possibility hanging over us would have been utter folly. I ask all those who cannot understand that to explain how thay would justify taking such a risk with the association's assets.
It must also be said that, unlike the LAA announcement, the BMAA statement was not shown to LAA for consideration or comment before release.
Finally, LAA is very disappointed that the merger discussions have not reached a satisfactory conclusion at this time. However, as Roger's statement says, both associations are looking to work together in areas of mutual interest. Once the legal risk has been resolved I do not doubt that LAA will be happy to revisit merger talks.

leiafee · Post by **leiafee** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:45 pm

The statement was initially accepted by BMAA management but it was commented that had to be passed around the BMAA Council. A week later there was no negative response so the announcement was posted on the LAA website.

Have to say if someone took my "lack of definite no" as a "yes go ahead" I'd be a bit peeved too.

Its frustrating that both organisations look like squabbling brats again. Especially hot on the heels of another exhange of angry press releases with AOPA over the unlicensed aerodromes issues.

Gary M · Post by **Gary M** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:21 pm

Brian,
I do not see any criticism of the EC above.

A very senoir PFA officialactively campaigned against Keith when Keith stood for the EC on the basis that he would be a spy on the PFA commercial interests and that is a matter of public record.

If this is a llargely a legal matter about joint assets being at risk which I doubt, then put the existing assets in a new legal entity and dissolve the old legal entities. Fresh start, new joint organisation, assets protected. In any case professional indemnity insurance would take the brunt of any liability.

Also it's about time certain senior members stopped treating the LAA as their personal fiefdom and instead get on and do what is best this countries flyers in the long term. Its not a commercial for profit organisation so all that tosh about not voting BMAA staff onto our EC in case they were spying was total bollocks. Unfortunately the same old attitude is all too obviously still apparent. We need a joint organisation now, so just tell 007 to get on with the job, find a way around the problems, stop playing King of the Bouncy Castle and stop procrastinating!

Brian Hope · Post by **Brian Hope** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:16 pm

Gary, I've explained the situation for the benefit of members who wanted more information, and to try and stem the untruths and conspiracy theories that some people just feel they have to expound, regardless of whether they have the faintest idea about the issue or not. If you choose to believe I am telling a pack of lies then so be it. And if you feel you have a better understanding of the law than our legal advisors then good for you.
What concerns me is that the EC runs the association in the best interests of the members and in a manner that safeguards our future. I am satisfied that is the case.