Thread drift warning;
For my 912 to be cost effective I cannot run it on Avgas more than 30% of the time. Fortunately biopetrol does not mean ethanol so I expect to be using mogas for the foreseeable future.
Anybody make it to the AGM? What was the result of the membership debate and what are the costs going up by?
Rod1
Background information to AGM tiered membership proposal
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
The motion was approved by about 2/3rds of the meeting (66 attendees).
I heard no new subscription fees mentioned or even hinted at, which I found strange.
An estimate of a potential of 20,000 members seemed to be the figure the EC had based their assumptions on.
'Fraid to say I wasn't convinced either by the way it was presented nor by the suggested name classes - full member "plus" or full member. Several thought that full member and associate member would be better descriptions but it was said that as associate membership already exists and it doesn't carry voting rights then that title could not be considered (?).
As I said before, I wasn't convinced. The idea might be good in principle but the figures on which the motion was proposed did not fill me with confidence.
I heard no new subscription fees mentioned or even hinted at, which I found strange.
An estimate of a potential of 20,000 members seemed to be the figure the EC had based their assumptions on.
'Fraid to say I wasn't convinced either by the way it was presented nor by the suggested name classes - full member "plus" or full member. Several thought that full member and associate member would be better descriptions but it was said that as associate membership already exists and it doesn't carry voting rights then that title could not be considered (?).
As I said before, I wasn't convinced. The idea might be good in principle but the figures on which the motion was proposed did not fill me with confidence.
016693
-
Mike Cross
- Site Admin
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am
Nigel said
The figures I quoted included 104 new projects registered in a 10 month period. If you reckon tha the average duration is around 5 years from registration to Permit issue that would mean a little over 600 projects current at any one time. 1968 renewals in 10 months equates to 2360 a year so around 3000 members a year needing to be in the Full Member Plus category.
I don't know what the current membership is but if it's around 8000 Full Members then an estimate that 4000 of them might downgrade to the cheaper option doesn't seem too wide of the mark.
I'm a believer in the Law of Unintended Consequences and am concerned that the right approach should be taken if we are not to end up shooting ourselves in the foot.
The proposal seeks to place the costs of Engineering more equitably on the shoulders of those who use its services. My own view is that we need a long hard look at fees so that they more accurately the costs of providing the particular service that is being charged for.
Rule 13b saysI think Mike has a good point of people downgrading to make their membership cheaper, we need to take this into consideration.
But the numbers quoted are also not really correct, they only assume one member per flying aircraft, whereas in a lot of cases there may be two or more members per aircraft. It also doesnt count projects.
As there was no proposal before the AGM to change Rule 13b it remains the case that co-owners should be Full Members (Not Full Members Plus). It will of course be necessary for anyone wanting access to Engineering to be a Full Member Plus, which will in practice man that at least one syndicate member will need to have this category of membership.All owners and co-owners of operational permit to fly aircraft administered by the Association shall be full members of the Association.
The figures I quoted included 104 new projects registered in a 10 month period. If you reckon tha the average duration is around 5 years from registration to Permit issue that would mean a little over 600 projects current at any one time. 1968 renewals in 10 months equates to 2360 a year so around 3000 members a year needing to be in the Full Member Plus category.
I don't know what the current membership is but if it's around 8000 Full Members then an estimate that 4000 of them might downgrade to the cheaper option doesn't seem too wide of the mark.
I'm a believer in the Law of Unintended Consequences and am concerned that the right approach should be taken if we are not to end up shooting ourselves in the foot.
The proposal seeks to place the costs of Engineering more equitably on the shoulders of those who use its services. My own view is that we need a long hard look at fees so that they more accurately the costs of providing the particular service that is being charged for.
030881
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
This post represents my personal view, which may or may not coincide with the official LAA view. If you cannot accept that, please do not bother to read on!
I am going to break my decision not to post here just for a one off explanation of what is intended with the two tier membership and the reasoning behind it. I am not going to enter into a prolonged debate about it; I just do not want people running away with the wrong idea based on supposition and incorrect information.
The name change and the re-defining of LAA last year was the start of an initiative to broaden the Association’s appeal to the GA community at large. Our regulatory work is extensive, and benefits the whole of GA, not just our members, and future changes in the way GA is structured will mean that as an association, our involvement in CofA aircraft and the new ELA types is likely to increase significantly. We are, to be blunt, no longer “that group of homebuilders”, we are a major player (and sayer) in what UK and European GA becomes as an entity, and how it is regulated.
In order to do this work in the best possible way, we need to increase the membership, and thus the income. It is not unreasonable to strive to double our membership over the next ten years, you have to have a goal. Just think, if every member recruited just one new member next year we could do it in twelve months!
The marketing committee therefore put forward a proposal to introduce a lower subscription rate for members who do not use the LAA Engineering services, effectively a magazine subscription plus a bit extra towards the benefits of belonging to a pro-active association working to safeguard their hobby. In this way we hope that some of the existing members we currently lose each year will decide to stay, and potential new members will see a more acceptable baseline figure which could make all the difference between deciding to join or not.
At the same time, the financial committee made it clear that we needed to raise our income for 2009 by upwards of 10%. Yes we are looking at ways of saving money, reducing paperwork and reviewing our costs, but costs are rising as we all know.
So, in working out some subscription rates we have two basic figures in mind, though some tweaking may happen as we finalise things. These are baseline figures, so if for instance, Joint membership is currently £10 more than a current Full adult membership, it will remain £10 more than these figures. A Full member without engineering access but with everything else, including voting rights, will cost £45. This is only a £3 drop on the current rate, but bear in mind that in the normal scheme of things we would raise subs by 10% to meet the demands of the finance committee, so effectively that would be a saving of £8 over what a 2009 subscription (£48 + 10%) would be under the old system.
A Full member Plus – and I’m not fussed about the name either – who has access to the Engineering dept will pay £65. Now, before some of you go off on one please bear a few things in mind. £65 represents an increase of £17 (a gnats over two gallons of Avgas); at the last sub increase I, as a member using engineering for my permit, paid £7 sub increase PLUS £20 increase on my permit fee - £27. WE WILL NOT be increasing permit or project registration fees, or any other engineering fees other than those for Modifications which are, in my view, pitifully unrealistic. A 10% overall increase in sub and engineering fees would mean that as a permit aircraft owner I would have an increase in 2009 of £23, £6 more than what is being proposed with the two tier system.
It should be noted that the costings were worked out on a supposition that there would be around 3000 members using Engineering services and 5000 not, and of course we considered the scenario that all existing non engineering users would take out the lowest subscription on renewal. However, there will hopefully be those that consider the LAA is worth paying the Full member Plus rate for regardless of the fact that they do not need to.
So, I hear you ask, how do we end up with more income? Because the builders using engineering will also be paying for engineering services. In the past the major increases have been made via the permit fee, an easy nick rather like the chancellor putting 25p on a pint or a packet of ciggies. In reality however, it is builders who make more demands on the engineers than anybody else, but because they do not pay an annual fee like a permit, they make no more contribution than a member who doesn’t use the service. Not really fair is it? And no this is not a knock the builder exercise, it is a way of making the system more equitable. Those who use it - permit owners and builders - pay a bit more for it; and at the same time we have a more competitive offer to present to prospective members that will hopefully encourage them to join us.
As somebody who owns a budget aeroplane – a Jodel – I know how much it costs to fly. Avgas is £1.65 plus, landing fees are generally £10 plus, hangarage and insurance see off well over £2000 a year for me before I’ve even sat in the aeroplane. I’m an ordinary working bloke who earns a very ordinary wage and I fly because it is my passion. I cannot really afford it, but I prefer to drive an old banger and not have fancy gizmos in order to do so. I have no doubt that many of our members are in the same boat. However, I realise above all else, that the only reason I can fly at all is because the LAA exists. The alternative of not flying is not something I wish to consider - and not flying is what many of us would end up with if there was no LAA.
To those who will inevitably cry foul as if the EC were intent on ruining their lives - please don’t insult my intelligence by moaning that an increase in the subscriptions of £17 is going to force people to stop flying, or mean they can’t afford to build their aircraft – that’s utter drivel and you know it. If you fly and build permit aircraft, £17 is an absolutely minute amount of money in your annual aviation budget. It is less than 20% of a single tank of fuel in most aircraft, and how many times a year do you fill your tanks?
The fact is we have to pay a reasonable sum to maintain the Association that provides the infrastructure for us to participate in a hobby that many of us could otherwise not afford, and also works passionately to defend our rights to do so. It would be a steal at £100 a year!
Just to reiterate, the £45 and £65 are not final figures, they may change in the final analysis, but they are representative of what is being discussed.
The motion was passed at the AGM yesterday and the January issue of the magazine will contain an article explaining the new system and setting out the subscription rates.
It is worth noting that none of those who opposed the idea had a viable alternative that would achieve a lower subscription to entice new members, was more equitable in that those using services pay most toward them, and increased our revenues for 2009.
I shall now return to my reclusive state, safe in the knowledge that even the most reasonable of explanations won’t have made a blind bit of difference to those who always know better but don’t actually do anything to prove it.
I am going to break my decision not to post here just for a one off explanation of what is intended with the two tier membership and the reasoning behind it. I am not going to enter into a prolonged debate about it; I just do not want people running away with the wrong idea based on supposition and incorrect information.
The name change and the re-defining of LAA last year was the start of an initiative to broaden the Association’s appeal to the GA community at large. Our regulatory work is extensive, and benefits the whole of GA, not just our members, and future changes in the way GA is structured will mean that as an association, our involvement in CofA aircraft and the new ELA types is likely to increase significantly. We are, to be blunt, no longer “that group of homebuilders”, we are a major player (and sayer) in what UK and European GA becomes as an entity, and how it is regulated.
In order to do this work in the best possible way, we need to increase the membership, and thus the income. It is not unreasonable to strive to double our membership over the next ten years, you have to have a goal. Just think, if every member recruited just one new member next year we could do it in twelve months!
The marketing committee therefore put forward a proposal to introduce a lower subscription rate for members who do not use the LAA Engineering services, effectively a magazine subscription plus a bit extra towards the benefits of belonging to a pro-active association working to safeguard their hobby. In this way we hope that some of the existing members we currently lose each year will decide to stay, and potential new members will see a more acceptable baseline figure which could make all the difference between deciding to join or not.
At the same time, the financial committee made it clear that we needed to raise our income for 2009 by upwards of 10%. Yes we are looking at ways of saving money, reducing paperwork and reviewing our costs, but costs are rising as we all know.
So, in working out some subscription rates we have two basic figures in mind, though some tweaking may happen as we finalise things. These are baseline figures, so if for instance, Joint membership is currently £10 more than a current Full adult membership, it will remain £10 more than these figures. A Full member without engineering access but with everything else, including voting rights, will cost £45. This is only a £3 drop on the current rate, but bear in mind that in the normal scheme of things we would raise subs by 10% to meet the demands of the finance committee, so effectively that would be a saving of £8 over what a 2009 subscription (£48 + 10%) would be under the old system.
A Full member Plus – and I’m not fussed about the name either – who has access to the Engineering dept will pay £65. Now, before some of you go off on one please bear a few things in mind. £65 represents an increase of £17 (a gnats over two gallons of Avgas); at the last sub increase I, as a member using engineering for my permit, paid £7 sub increase PLUS £20 increase on my permit fee - £27. WE WILL NOT be increasing permit or project registration fees, or any other engineering fees other than those for Modifications which are, in my view, pitifully unrealistic. A 10% overall increase in sub and engineering fees would mean that as a permit aircraft owner I would have an increase in 2009 of £23, £6 more than what is being proposed with the two tier system.
It should be noted that the costings were worked out on a supposition that there would be around 3000 members using Engineering services and 5000 not, and of course we considered the scenario that all existing non engineering users would take out the lowest subscription on renewal. However, there will hopefully be those that consider the LAA is worth paying the Full member Plus rate for regardless of the fact that they do not need to.
So, I hear you ask, how do we end up with more income? Because the builders using engineering will also be paying for engineering services. In the past the major increases have been made via the permit fee, an easy nick rather like the chancellor putting 25p on a pint or a packet of ciggies. In reality however, it is builders who make more demands on the engineers than anybody else, but because they do not pay an annual fee like a permit, they make no more contribution than a member who doesn’t use the service. Not really fair is it? And no this is not a knock the builder exercise, it is a way of making the system more equitable. Those who use it - permit owners and builders - pay a bit more for it; and at the same time we have a more competitive offer to present to prospective members that will hopefully encourage them to join us.
As somebody who owns a budget aeroplane – a Jodel – I know how much it costs to fly. Avgas is £1.65 plus, landing fees are generally £10 plus, hangarage and insurance see off well over £2000 a year for me before I’ve even sat in the aeroplane. I’m an ordinary working bloke who earns a very ordinary wage and I fly because it is my passion. I cannot really afford it, but I prefer to drive an old banger and not have fancy gizmos in order to do so. I have no doubt that many of our members are in the same boat. However, I realise above all else, that the only reason I can fly at all is because the LAA exists. The alternative of not flying is not something I wish to consider - and not flying is what many of us would end up with if there was no LAA.
To those who will inevitably cry foul as if the EC were intent on ruining their lives - please don’t insult my intelligence by moaning that an increase in the subscriptions of £17 is going to force people to stop flying, or mean they can’t afford to build their aircraft – that’s utter drivel and you know it. If you fly and build permit aircraft, £17 is an absolutely minute amount of money in your annual aviation budget. It is less than 20% of a single tank of fuel in most aircraft, and how many times a year do you fill your tanks?
The fact is we have to pay a reasonable sum to maintain the Association that provides the infrastructure for us to participate in a hobby that many of us could otherwise not afford, and also works passionately to defend our rights to do so. It would be a steal at £100 a year!
Just to reiterate, the £45 and £65 are not final figures, they may change in the final analysis, but they are representative of what is being discussed.
The motion was passed at the AGM yesterday and the January issue of the magazine will contain an article explaining the new system and setting out the subscription rates.
It is worth noting that none of those who opposed the idea had a viable alternative that would achieve a lower subscription to entice new members, was more equitable in that those using services pay most toward them, and increased our revenues for 2009.
I shall now return to my reclusive state, safe in the knowledge that even the most reasonable of explanations won’t have made a blind bit of difference to those who always know better but don’t actually do anything to prove it.
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
Hi Rod, I am not back, just trying to make sure that this particuler issue is properly explained.
The senior rate is currently given to those members over the age of 65 who request it. Many do not, they are happy to pay the full rate.
As I said, we are still working on figures but it is likely that the current £33 will remain unchanged. The senior rate is there to help those on minimal incomes to retain their membership, EC is happy to encourage them to stay. However if senior members operate a permit aeroplane then they will pay the Full member plus rate; it is totally unreasonable, in my view, that somebody who can afford to operate an aircraft and uses engineering services should be permitted to pay the senior rate.
One of the focuses of the new structure is for an equitable system, and in applying it we will endeavour to be fair and reasonable. If people have particular circumstances that fall outside the system then we will be happy to listen and work something out if it is appropriate.
The senior rate is currently given to those members over the age of 65 who request it. Many do not, they are happy to pay the full rate.
As I said, we are still working on figures but it is likely that the current £33 will remain unchanged. The senior rate is there to help those on minimal incomes to retain their membership, EC is happy to encourage them to stay. However if senior members operate a permit aeroplane then they will pay the Full member plus rate; it is totally unreasonable, in my view, that somebody who can afford to operate an aircraft and uses engineering services should be permitted to pay the senior rate.
One of the focuses of the new structure is for an equitable system, and in applying it we will endeavour to be fair and reasonable. If people have particular circumstances that fall outside the system then we will be happy to listen and work something out if it is appropriate.
-
steveneale
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
- Location: Bristol'ish
Strange as I recall expansion of the associate membership was mentioned as was a magazine only subscription.Brian Hope wrote: It is worth noting that none of those who opposed the idea had a viable alternative that would achieve
a lower subscription to entice new members, was more equitable in that those using services pay most
toward them, and increased our revenues for 2009.
As you were sat behind me Brian I'm pretty sure you were at the same meeting
Anyway it's decided now and we'll have to give it a go. That's democracy for ya.
Steve
Brian,
Well put, the GA bit is vital, we have to appeal to all. On the membership category, I feel that if we want to increase membership then calling the Engineering Option "plus"may not be a good idea. It may appear to potential non homebuilt/non-permit members (also our target) that they are buying a second class membership. Why not just call the new category something neutral sounding, like Member (E), for engineering. Just a marketing point I'm making. Good to see you back on the board albeit temporarily. What will it take to get you back on it?
Bob Farrell
Well put, the GA bit is vital, we have to appeal to all. On the membership category, I feel that if we want to increase membership then calling the Engineering Option "plus"may not be a good idea. It may appear to potential non homebuilt/non-permit members (also our target) that they are buying a second class membership. Why not just call the new category something neutral sounding, like Member (E), for engineering. Just a marketing point I'm making. Good to see you back on the board albeit temporarily. What will it take to get you back on it?
Bob Farrell
Bob Farrell
036981
036981
-
Brian Hope
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:28 pm
- Location: Sheerness Kent
I'm getting sucked into a debate I did not want to have but... associate membership or a magazine subscription are effectively the same thing as a tiered membership using different names. And to add a lower rate membership without increasing charges to a retentive section of the membership would be sheer folly - we need to raise more money not reduce our income. A split of members who use engineering and those who do not is the obvious way to do it.
To be honest, saying we should have a magazine subscription or associate members without expanding the argument as to how it would generate the income requirement for 2009 without undue risk is pretty pointless.
No more, I'm gone, I have other things I need to do.
To be honest, saying we should have a magazine subscription or associate members without expanding the argument as to how it would generate the income requirement for 2009 without undue risk is pretty pointless.
No more, I'm gone, I have other things I need to do.
Well stated Brian and thank you for informing us.
I, as a LAA administrated aircraft owner, am quite content to pay the "slightly" higher fee for engineering service/advice/admin/help/permit renewal/....... so you see it is quite a bit you get for your money !
Hopefully it will have the desired effect of recruiting new members and retaining what we already have.
Sometimes decisions can be up-popular, people behind the scenes having the balls to try and move it forward can get inadvertently booted in the nuts, having the guts to put your head above the parapet and be counted can take courage, from one grateful LAA member let me offer my thanks.
(PS) Good to see you back even if only for this post.
I, as a LAA administrated aircraft owner, am quite content to pay the "slightly" higher fee for engineering service/advice/admin/help/permit renewal/....... so you see it is quite a bit you get for your money !
Hopefully it will have the desired effect of recruiting new members and retaining what we already have.
Sometimes decisions can be up-popular, people behind the scenes having the balls to try and move it forward can get inadvertently booted in the nuts, having the guts to put your head above the parapet and be counted can take courage, from one grateful LAA member let me offer my thanks.
(PS) Good to see you back
even if only for this post.026434
-
mikehallam
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:12 pm
- Location: West Sussex
- Contact:
-
Nigel Hitchman
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:10 pm
- Location: Hinton in the hedges
Brian,
thanks for the explanation, with those example figures, it makes sense. Yes we will get more money from the current membership, and this will mean that those building will pay a bit more towards the engineering services. I think the increased project registration fee (done a couple of years ago) also helps to address the balance. At the moment of course there are still many projects ongoing who wouldnt have paid this higher initial fee.
However, although this makes more money from the current membership, Im not sure that it does anything to attract more members. For that I think we need to get the word out more on what the LAA does for GA, but also provide more tangiable benefits. And that doesnt mean gimicks like discounted car purchase thats not any cheaper than you can negotiate yourself or some of the other things that were offered over the years.
Having discounted entry and airside priviladges at the Rally I think will always be the biggest benefit we can offer.
Mike,
seems like LAA were using similar number to you, I was thinking there were many more projects on the go, more like 2000 but I have no data to back that up! I was also assuming that every partner in a flying aircraft or project would want to be a "Member plus". But agree with what you say about the wording of rule 13b not demanding that.
Anyway at least it looks from what Brian has shown, that the change has sound financial basis to increase the income from the current membership.
As Brian mentions, mods are one of the things that take up a lot of engineering time for very little income. Something that needs to be looked at carefully again.
thanks for the explanation, with those example figures, it makes sense. Yes we will get more money from the current membership, and this will mean that those building will pay a bit more towards the engineering services. I think the increased project registration fee (done a couple of years ago) also helps to address the balance. At the moment of course there are still many projects ongoing who wouldnt have paid this higher initial fee.
However, although this makes more money from the current membership, Im not sure that it does anything to attract more members. For that I think we need to get the word out more on what the LAA does for GA, but also provide more tangiable benefits. And that doesnt mean gimicks like discounted car purchase thats not any cheaper than you can negotiate yourself or some of the other things that were offered over the years.
Having discounted entry and airside priviladges at the Rally I think will always be the biggest benefit we can offer.
Mike,
seems like LAA were using similar number to you, I was thinking there were many more projects on the go, more like 2000 but I have no data to back that up! I was also assuming that every partner in a flying aircraft or project would want to be a "Member plus". But agree with what you say about the wording of rule 13b not demanding that.
Anyway at least it looks from what Brian has shown, that the change has sound financial basis to increase the income from the current membership.
As Brian mentions, mods are one of the things that take up a lot of engineering time for very little income. Something that needs to be looked at carefully again.
-
Mike Cross
- Site Admin
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am
Many thanks for the detailed explanation Brian. I'm relieved that my idea of what the proposed fees might be was wide of the mark. It was the "low cost, ‘basic’ membership" referred to here that was getting me worried.
030881