"In effect the plan is to separate membership of the Association from involvement with permit aircraft and to offer magazine subscription and voting rights at a cost comparable with subscription to other flying magazines. We were assured that this would be done by a lowering the basic membership cost rather than increasing the cost of membership plus"
Josher, I explained how the new system is intended to operate and you have chosen to state something completely at odds with that explanation. At no time was it said at the AGM that Membership Plus would not be at an increased cost to the current subscription.
For year one theMembership Plus subscription will increase over the Membership sub by an amount that will retain our current level of income plus 10%. In other words, and I will put this as clearly as I can Josher, if our exisiting membership stays the same as it is now, and 5000 members opt for the basic Membership and only 3000 opt for Plus, we will increase our income by the required 10%.
The hope is that membership retention will be higher because of the lower Membership rate, and that lower rate will make it easier to attract new members.
As mentioned in my earlier explanation, ball park figures are £45 and £65.
Background information to AGM tiered membership proposal
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
-
Mike Cross
- Site Admin
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am
I'm with Brian on this.
My original fear was like Malcolm's that the new Membership rate would be significantly less than the current one and the loss of income from people trading down would not be covered. I expressed that view on Page 1 of this thread. Brian's ball-park figures which he gave on page 2 and repeats above have allayed that fear because the reduction is only three pounds but the increase for Plus Members is 17. Effectively for me it's an increase of 17 pounds on the Permit renewal. Given that you'd normally expect membership to go up with inflation the effective increase in Permit fee is probably around £15.
As Brian says 5000 x 3 reduction against 3000 x 17 increase = a nett gain of 36k.
From the punter's perspective the offer is "An annual sub to the magazine for £35 plus a tenner towards funding the association and a vote" if you don't use engineering or the same plus 20 quid a year to give you acces to engineering. Put in those terms I think it's a strong and saleable proposition.
I would be happier still if Engineering were able to cover all of their costs from fees. That way the two-tier structure would be unnecessary and the extra cost of marketing and policing it would not be incurred.
On a slightly different tack:-
It appears that the Association subsidises the approval of new designs by not charging the full cost of the work involved. At the moment that subsidy appears not to be sufficiently valued. If it is to be continued perhaps it could be done in the form of a bursary or grant towards the approval costs. An annual design competition would provide valuable publicity and an effective means of selecting those designs most likely to be succesful. An award of a bursary worth real money off approval costs would have a lot more impact in peoples' minds than subsidised charges and gives a valuable headline figure for marketing. It could be structured as a bursary of £x which may be spent in the form of a discount of y% on the published engineering charges until it is exhausted. That way the bursary would only be "spent" as the design progressed through the approval process, you wouldn't be giving the whole lot away at the beginning for a project that might falter and stall in the future. You could also time-limit it to say 5 years so if the project stalls the entitlement lapses.
Along with that perhaps we could foster the idea of Design Mentors, people willing to assist designers in navigating the approval process in hte same way that Inspectors assist bulders?
My original fear was like Malcolm's that the new Membership rate would be significantly less than the current one and the loss of income from people trading down would not be covered. I expressed that view on Page 1 of this thread. Brian's ball-park figures which he gave on page 2 and repeats above have allayed that fear because the reduction is only three pounds but the increase for Plus Members is 17. Effectively for me it's an increase of 17 pounds on the Permit renewal. Given that you'd normally expect membership to go up with inflation the effective increase in Permit fee is probably around £15.
As Brian says 5000 x 3 reduction against 3000 x 17 increase = a nett gain of 36k.
From the punter's perspective the offer is "An annual sub to the magazine for £35 plus a tenner towards funding the association and a vote" if you don't use engineering or the same plus 20 quid a year to give you acces to engineering. Put in those terms I think it's a strong and saleable proposition.
I would be happier still if Engineering were able to cover all of their costs from fees. That way the two-tier structure would be unnecessary and the extra cost of marketing and policing it would not be incurred.
On a slightly different tack:-
It appears that the Association subsidises the approval of new designs by not charging the full cost of the work involved. At the moment that subsidy appears not to be sufficiently valued. If it is to be continued perhaps it could be done in the form of a bursary or grant towards the approval costs. An annual design competition would provide valuable publicity and an effective means of selecting those designs most likely to be succesful. An award of a bursary worth real money off approval costs would have a lot more impact in peoples' minds than subsidised charges and gives a valuable headline figure for marketing. It could be structured as a bursary of £x which may be spent in the form of a discount of y% on the published engineering charges until it is exhausted. That way the bursary would only be "spent" as the design progressed through the approval process, you wouldn't be giving the whole lot away at the beginning for a project that might falter and stall in the future. You could also time-limit it to say 5 years so if the project stalls the entitlement lapses.
Along with that perhaps we could foster the idea of Design Mentors, people willing to assist designers in navigating the approval process in hte same way that Inspectors assist bulders?
030881
G-Info contains the address of every aircraft owner in the UK ( in theory).
It shouldn't be too difficult to cross reference this to the LAA database,especially as any permit aircraft on G-info should already be on the LAA database.
We were told at the AGM that due to our new publishers we had any amount of mags available "effectively free".
Would it not be a good idea to send one to each owner with a single page flyer in it pointing out the good work we are doing to keep them airbourn and asking them to join?
It shouldn't be too difficult to cross reference this to the LAA database,especially as any permit aircraft on G-info should already be on the LAA database.
We were told at the AGM that due to our new publishers we had any amount of mags available "effectively free".
Would it not be a good idea to send one to each owner with a single page flyer in it pointing out the good work we are doing to keep them airbourn and asking them to join?
John Cook
031327
031327
Regarding categories of membership I like the idea one, basic, membership but with "bolt-on" options. A bit like AA or RAC membership.
Everyone who is or joins becomes a "standard" member. The get the excellent magazine and normal voting rights.
Perhaps the first category of "bolt-option" could be:
"Basic Engineering support". That would cover those members who own aircraft, only require annual permit renewals and use minimal engineering dept. resources. Perhaps, for example, an inclusive "2 hrs of engineering dept. time per annum" - that type of level.
Second category could be:
"Constructors' Engineering support". Covers members who are building and would require more support from engineering than a basic owner/flyer requires.
Third category could be:
"Advanced Engineering support". Would cover those members who require significant engineering support (new type approval, major modifications etc.)
The cost of each category of subscription "bolt-on" would be set to achieve the Association's objectives of increasing income.
So, every member whether an owner, PPL holder, spotter, builder, designer or young aviation enthusiast will feel they are all "equal" in the eyes of the LAA regarding being a member. Those who need "extra" gain that by subscribing to one of the bolt-on options.
Tony Nowak
Everyone who is or joins becomes a "standard" member. The get the excellent magazine and normal voting rights.
Perhaps the first category of "bolt-option" could be:
"Basic Engineering support". That would cover those members who own aircraft, only require annual permit renewals and use minimal engineering dept. resources. Perhaps, for example, an inclusive "2 hrs of engineering dept. time per annum" - that type of level.
Second category could be:
"Constructors' Engineering support". Covers members who are building and would require more support from engineering than a basic owner/flyer requires.
Third category could be:
"Advanced Engineering support". Would cover those members who require significant engineering support (new type approval, major modifications etc.)
The cost of each category of subscription "bolt-on" would be set to achieve the Association's objectives of increasing income.
So, every member whether an owner, PPL holder, spotter, builder, designer or young aviation enthusiast will feel they are all "equal" in the eyes of the LAA regarding being a member. Those who need "extra" gain that by subscribing to one of the bolt-on options.
Tony Nowak
Sorry Brian I somehow missed your post although I think I'm coming to the same point by a different route. What I was trying to express was that that the reduced rate was in fact a reduction rather than an upping of the engineering membership. The fact that there iwill be be an inflation in 'engineerinmg' membership fee in next year is a separate issue.
My major point though is that we should be promoting a membership level aimed at the non permit flyer rather than selling as a magazine subscription
My major point though is that we should be promoting a membership level aimed at the non permit flyer rather than selling as a magazine subscription
Malcolm Rogan
029841
029841
-
Nigel Hitchman
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:10 pm
- Location: Hinton in the hedges
Mike brings up the point of subsidies in engineering and Tony Nowak suggests a quite complicated membership option list to perhaps cope with this.
The problems with Tony's suggestion is not every aircraft is the same. I built an RV6 and didnt use any engineering time during my build, except project registration and submitting the details for my permit to test and permit to fly. There are other types where people probably used a lot of engineering's time, perhaps where the plans/kit wasnt so good, or where there isnt a large group of knowledgeable people out on the www. The RV6 also probably took a lot less engineering time to approve the design than did some other types.
There are some aircraft types that in engineering cost are big money makers for the LAA- thoase types where a lot of examples have been built, wheras some other types where only one or two have been built will have cost engineering a lot of money. The problem is, when it comes to getting initial approval who knows which one is going to be sucessful.
This is a risk that we take and it is good that the initial approvals are subsidized as it allows new types to be offered and not only those designed or imported by people with lots of money! If people had to pay the going rate for approval than I suspect that very few new types would be offfered.
However I think that once a new type has been approved under the subsidized system, then if people want to change their aircraft from this approval, they should have to pay a more reasonable charge for modifications that reflects the amount of engineering work required. Mods take up a lot of engineerings time, particularly many that are badly presented, but at present are only charged at a very low nominal cost.
However along with this a more open minded view perhaps has to be taken of what constitutes a modification and what is just standard engineering practice or alternative methods and could be signed off by an inspector and not need full engineering investigation.
A very good idea would be the design mentors as suggested by Mike, but this isnt new, Jeremy Harris mentioned this many times and it is already a system used by the BMAA to help with initial design approvals and modifications. Im sure there are also "unofficial" people who LAA members also get directed towards to help them as well, but perhaps we need to try to formalise the availability of this system if you want it.
The problems with Tony's suggestion is not every aircraft is the same. I built an RV6 and didnt use any engineering time during my build, except project registration and submitting the details for my permit to test and permit to fly. There are other types where people probably used a lot of engineering's time, perhaps where the plans/kit wasnt so good, or where there isnt a large group of knowledgeable people out on the www. The RV6 also probably took a lot less engineering time to approve the design than did some other types.
There are some aircraft types that in engineering cost are big money makers for the LAA- thoase types where a lot of examples have been built, wheras some other types where only one or two have been built will have cost engineering a lot of money. The problem is, when it comes to getting initial approval who knows which one is going to be sucessful.
This is a risk that we take and it is good that the initial approvals are subsidized as it allows new types to be offered and not only those designed or imported by people with lots of money! If people had to pay the going rate for approval than I suspect that very few new types would be offfered.
However I think that once a new type has been approved under the subsidized system, then if people want to change their aircraft from this approval, they should have to pay a more reasonable charge for modifications that reflects the amount of engineering work required. Mods take up a lot of engineerings time, particularly many that are badly presented, but at present are only charged at a very low nominal cost.
However along with this a more open minded view perhaps has to be taken of what constitutes a modification and what is just standard engineering practice or alternative methods and could be signed off by an inspector and not need full engineering investigation.
A very good idea would be the design mentors as suggested by Mike, but this isnt new, Jeremy Harris mentioned this many times and it is already a system used by the BMAA to help with initial design approvals and modifications. Im sure there are also "unofficial" people who LAA members also get directed towards to help them as well, but perhaps we need to try to formalise the availability of this system if you want it.
-
Steve Brown
- Posts: 257
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am