Is AOPA overstating things?

Come on in for general chat and POLITE banter between LAA members

Moderators: John Dean, Moderator

Dave Hall
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Nr Bristol
Contact:

Post by Dave Hall » Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:23 am

"....AOPA, amongst others,...." doesn't sound as if they're taking all the credit, just that's who the poster belongs to.
032505

Brian Hope
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
Location: Sheerness Kent

Post by Brian Hope » Sun Sep 21, 2008 6:25 pm

Dave, you're being somewhat generous I feel. The short answer Cirrus is yes indeedy. AOPA posted a note on their website which clearly suggests that once again they saved the world. Fact is that when this issue raised its head it was the LAA in the form of Roger and Graham that went to the Treasury to discuss the matter. AOPA and others did get involved later in the process. Unlike AOPA though, we will not suggest that it was us that achieved this result, but that it was GA working together.
Incidentally it is GA working together (again from an initial paper submitted by PFA) that has moved CAA to come around to the idea that flight training from unlicensed airfields (which will undoubtedly cut costs) is a reasonable way to go. Guess which is the ONLY organisation opposing the idea?

User avatar
leiafee
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Swansea
Contact:

Post by leiafee » Sun Sep 21, 2008 11:43 pm

Is being "generous" to other organisations trying to support GA a bad thing then...? :roll:

Brian Hope
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
Location: Sheerness Kent

Post by Brian Hope » Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:15 am

Leia, of course not, maybe AOPA should try it some time.

User avatar
leiafee
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Swansea
Contact:

Post by leiafee » Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:17 pm

Sometimes I really do wonder if I've paid over my fiftyodd quid to some football gang going nehnehneh across the pitch at the other lot.

Brian Hope
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
Location: Sheerness Kent

Post by Brian Hope » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:49 am

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?

User avatar
Rod1
Posts: 567
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Midlands

Post by Rod1 » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:04 am

Mr Brian Hope, a powerful member of the LAA’s ruling Executive Committee and editor of the prestigious “Light Aviation” magazine, today stated, on a publicly accessible internet forum, that AOPA UK has acted in a dishonorable way. Mr Hope, a long time pilot and aircraft owner, has been known to be outspoken in the past. His comments come just a few months after AOPA UK threatened to sue the LAA due to another statement made on the LAA web site. Taken into context of the breakdown in relations between the BMAA and the LAA, it appears that our representative bodes are at each others throats. Whatever happened to one voice…

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Rod1
021864

Brian Hope
Posts: 1271
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
Location: Sheerness Kent

Post by Brian Hope » Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:38 am

Rod, what I said was I do not think that AOPA acted honourably. That is not a quote of LAA's view. nor anybody else's, just what I think. People used to think the world was flat, didn't make it so though did it? Quite how you draw the ridiculous conclusion that LAA is 'at the throat' of AOPA based on what I think is beyond me, but then most of what you come up with on here is beyond me.
We appear to have got to a situation where you and a number of other protagonists want to take the view that LAA is responsible for all life's ills. For instance, the cessation of talks between BMAA and LAA was some kind of deliberate act on the part of LAA to cause bad feeling, or do the BMAA down in some way. The reasons for the decision to cease the process were fully explained in the magazine, yet still you appear not to be prepared to accept that LAA, faced with such a serious problem, had no other sensible course of action. Likewise with this AOPA issue. I take it you do not value the efforts of a number of volunteers from YOUR association who worked long and hard to help prevent a catastophic increase in the price of Avgas? You feel no need to even consider that somebody else claiming the credit for that success, and thereby gaining positive PR at the expense of our hard working guys, is unreasonable? And then you dare to suggest that because I choose to mention that fact I am somehow being antagonistic and behaving irresponsibly! Get a life man, there's a real world outside of these silly computer screens you know.

User avatar
Rod1
Posts: 567
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:22 am
Location: Midlands

Post by Rod1 » Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:06 pm

Brian,

Take a deep breath man! If you take another look at my post you will see a line of little smiling faces. This was to indicate that it was a spoof. You did not think I really thought you were that important did you? :lol:

Rod1

Edited to add;

“powerful member of the LAA’s ruling Executive Committee and editor of the prestigious “Light Aviation” magazine” is BS after all, right?
:wink:
021864

User avatar
Mike Cross
Site Admin
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am

Post by Mike Cross » Wed Sep 24, 2008 1:57 pm

Brian
The statement below has just been entered on the AOPA website. I have transferred it over here to push home one major thing that AOPA, amongst others, have helped to achieve for the GA pilot over the last year. And of course it is always good to hear some good news!
That is not a statement from AOPA, it is a posting by a member. What is it that drives you to write such vitriol as "I do not think that AOPA acted honourably" or "You feel no need to even consider that somebody else claiming the credit for that success, and thereby gaining positive PR at the expense of our hard working guys, is unreasonable"?

An AOPA member has claimed that AOPA helped to achieve something. Do you deny that?

You do yourself and the Association no favours with such outbursts.
030881

steveneale
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
Location: Bristol'ish

Post by steveneale » Wed Sep 24, 2008 2:24 pm

Brian clearly stated he is posting as an individual member. He IS entitled to voice his opinion as is anyone else. The statement is on the AOPA website and appears to be from Martin Robinson. This is the link.

http://www.aopa.co.uk/scripts/news.php?id=ODY

Steve

User avatar
Mike Cross
Site Admin
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am

Post by Mike Cross » Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:18 pm

And where Steve does it say that it's all AOPA's work? Apart from the signature it could have been published anywhere, including here without raising an eyebrow.

It contains neither "AOPA" nor "LAA". What exactly is your point?

Brian is as you say absolutely entitled to voice his opinion I have no argument with that, I simply suggested that what he posted did neither he nor LAA any favours, which is an opinion that I am sure you will agree, I am equally entitled to express.
030881

steveneale
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
Location: Bristol'ish

Post by steveneale » Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:03 pm

here:

"which is the rate argued for by AOPA."

It would not have hurt Martin to mention LAA did the lobbying, and were the primary negotiators. Fortunately AOPA members don't only look at the AOPA website so know will know who actually did all the work. It's an own goal for AOPA i'm afraid.

Mike, you Rod1 and Brian all work hard for us in your own ways. Don't fall out over trivia guys.

Post Reply