Is AOPA overstating things?

Post by **John Dean** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:20 pm

Steve Neale wrote: Don't fall out over trivia guys.

...and please don't forget the words on the Index Page for the Hangar Chat forum - POLITE banter between LAA members

Mike Cross · Post by **Mike Cross** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:29 pm

Just goes to show how you can miss something that's there in front of your eyes.

It doesn't appear to be justify Brian's comment or to suggest that AOPA achieved it on their own, simply that the result is in line with what AOPA were suggesting. As something posted on AOPA's own website to inform their members I see nothing wrong with it.

Others seem to have a different opinion.

On the matter of Lee on Solent, Hampshire Police Authority decided at their meeting yesterday to set user charges at £550 per annum inc VAT with microlights paying half that. That's for a landing card. I'd argued that a fair comparator was the £235 inc VAT charged at Hestridge (also unlicensed with a single hard runway). Unfortunately HPA didn't share my opinion on that. However it's a darned sight better than the £2000 plus figure that they came up with originally

leiafee · Post by **leiafee** » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:47 pm

Brian Hope wrote:Leia, as a member of the LAA I am entitled to express my view on this board, and I make no apologies for doing so. It is by the way, just my view and not a representation of official LAA policy.
AOPA is implying it alone brought about the result of the fuel tax issue, and that is simply not the case. It came about as a result of efforts by a number of associations.
I do not think that is an honourable way for them to behave. Am I to take it you do?

I don't feel the need to express any opinion about AOPA beyond the fact that it's the LAA and not them, to whom I've paid over the aforementioned fiftyplus quid. The tubthumping I'm perfectly happy to leave to others.

The outcome is good and that's more important than who gets the pat on the back, to me.

What does distress me is the fact that comments of that nature make the organisation look like a fractious kid complaining that someone copied their homework, instead of a mature, professional organisation. It's more distressing because I don't think it's true -- all the individuals are motivated by the right things -- there just seems to be a distinct lack of "social graces" at times!

It's fine saying it's your own view and not a formal statement, but the fact remains that you are in a position where people will form an opinion of the organisation based on your comments and behaviour.

If we are "competing" with AOPA, and I've no doubt that is the case for membership subs to some extent, then the way to win people over is not with silly he-said-she-said squabbles.

steveneale · Post by **steveneale** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:21 am

Well I guess EC could run a cabinet type system where everyone makes the same sanitized statements irrespective of what they actually think. That work's doesn't it!

Squabbles here don't matter much frankly and if they give the guys at the coal face a way to blow off steam so be it. What does matter is LAA have the ear of the people that will decide how we fly for the foreseeable future. LAA is on the committees; it's opinion matters and is listened to. That is what is important to most of us and the rest is BS. These are seminal times for GA and your £50 is well spent here.

Captain Pulsar · Post by **Captain Pulsar** » Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:28 pm

These are seminal times for GA and your £50 is well spent here.

Right with you there Steve.

flyin'dutch' · Post by **flyin'dutch'** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:16 pm

It is not the first time that some LAA members close to the fire find it necessary to slag off fellow representative bodies in GA.

That is just very sad and does nothing to promote either the LAA or give those we are dealing with the impression that we are professional amateurs who are worthwhile discussion partners.