AOPA gets "Zoomed"

"Spiriling the drain" is an accurate description. They lost their way and, IMHO, doubt they will be found with an ever declining pilot population.
 
I tend to agree with them. Pretty lame. However, they are really the only game in town, so maybe they will start doing their job again.
 
AOPA, at its core, remains a member-driven organization, and only with productive input from its members can it define its mission better.

Never be afraid to offer concrete and productive advice.
 
Anthony said:
I tend to agree with them. Pretty lame. However, they are really the only game in town, so maybe they will start doing their job again.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a general feeling that both AOPA and EAA have become too big for their britches, attitude-wise. Not surprisingly, this comes after changes at the top in both organizations.

Given the precipitous decline in GA, it is evident to me that a downsize for these organizations is inevitable. It might even make sense for them to merge, since their missions seem to overlap in many areas?

This would probably mean the loss of the upper tier of aircraft owners, who see little in common with the bug smashers, but they've never been a good fit with either AOPA or EAA anyway. One of the biggest gripes I hear about AOPA is that they cater too much to the jet crowd, so perhaps shedding the Jet Set would help?

Any way you slice it, with the loss of the WWII and Korean War pilots, membership in the piloting club has been gutted, and all of general aviation is going to be impacted. Zoom is only reporting what we already know.

Sent from my Nexus 7
 
News/Analysis By ANN Editor-In-Chief, Jim Campbell
OK... let me start off with the following -- no one likes to do stories like this...

Over the years, I've seen this guy do hatchet jobs on more than one subject.

I think he does enjoy it.
 
I agree with you Jay. I have felt for a while now that society, our government, etc looks at GA and us as a nuisance. Sometimes I feel that AOPA looks at its members as a nuisance, although I keep paying my dues every year, going on almost 20 years now.
 
It will be interesting to see if AvWeb chimes in. This could get very interesting.
 
Interesting article. I have heard of many challenges and issues going on, but wasn't aware of the depth that the article reports.

I would hope that Spike's sentiment is right on, but to whom do we communicate with so that our individual voices are heard?
 
Tom-D said:
News/Analysis By ANN Editor-In-Chief, Jim Campbell
OK... let me start off with the following -- no one likes to do stories like this...

Over the years, I've seen this guy do hatchet jobs on more than one subject.

I think he does enjoy it.
Click to expand...

Believe me, he absolutely lives for it.
 
Papa Foxtrot said:
My, my, my... I guess they turned down his ad buy sales pitch. :popcorn:
Click to expand...
Or told him they weren't going to pay his way to the AOPA convention, or wouldn't end their association with Cirrus, or otherwise quit stroking Campbell's ego. Worthiness of the target aside, Campbell's attacks don't seem to start until there's no benefit in ignoring problems with the company. Revolution Helicopters (e.g., Mini-500) is a classic case... criticism building for years, nothing said in US Aviator while the advertisements are paid for. Avweb actually broke the story.

It'll be interesting to see if AOPA responds to Zoom's editorial. If they do, I'm guessing they'll be "nice" about it.

Ron Wanttaja
 
At least some of it was deserved, but one does have the question the source. Whatever happened to the Cirrus lawsuit?
 
AOPA, at its core, remains a member-driven organization
Click to expand...
Really? The employees select their own bosses using the proxies that they get from unwitting members during the renewal process. When was the last time you saw an announcement to members of any Board of Governors vacancy or top organizational manager opening? When was the last time you saw anything at all encouraging members to participate in the governance of the organization?

AOPA is driven in exactly the same way that Burger King is driven.Both need happy, repeat, customers in order to maintain and increase their revenue stream. One difference, though, is that Burger King doesn't have a customer magazine that they can use to sell themselves. Another is that Burger King customers haven't been deluded into thinking they are something besides revenue sources. Burger King doesn't involve their customers in the governance of the company and neither does AOPA.

Objectively speaking, the proxy system is brilliant. And nearly bulletproof.

Re the ad hominem attacks on Campbell, those who don't like him or don't trust him can ignore the opinions in his article. But there is a fair amount of factual material presented, and I don't think he's making any of that up. None of it really surprises me except the fact that the advertisers have apparently risen up.
 
SCCutler said:
AOPA, at its core, remains a member-driven organization, and only with productive input from its members can it define its mission better.

Never be afraid to offer concrete and productive advice.
Click to expand...

Spike - have you tried? I have.

It didn't get very far.

edit: Also - totally forgot to mention the article in the OP - Zoom is a nutjob, and an attack artist, but he got this one right on the money, unfortunately. AOPA is a wasteful, useless organization. I hoped for change with Craig Fuller, I rejoined because of it, but after a year of seeing the same "do nothing" tactics, I let my membership lapse again.

We really need better representation.
 
Last edited:
And, hot off the press, AOPA names Aircraft Spruce:

As a strategic partner in AOPA’s Corporate Partnership Program, Aircraft Spruce will support the association and its members through engagement activities including sponsorship of the registration area at AOPA Aviation Summit, support for AOPA website content, and periodic special offers and discounts through both Aircraft Spruce and PilotShop.com. They will also provide year-round special offers through the AOPA Lifestyles Member Discounts Program.
Click to expand...

http://www.aopa.org/membership/arti...gns-on-as-strategic-partner.html?CMP=News:S1T
 
Wow. I've always wondered how AOPA hasn't been called out by its advertiers for competing with them in areas like insurance. Guess they're being called out now.
 
SkyHog said:
Also - totally forgot to mention the article in the OP - Zoom is a nutjob, and an attack artist, but he got this one right on the money, unfortunately. AOPA is a wasteful, useless organization. I hoped for change with Craig Fuller, I rejoined because of it, but after a year of seeing the same "do nothing" tactics, I let my membership lapse again.

We really need better representation.
Click to expand...

As is often the case, the underlying truths are easily lost in the background noise of Zoom's typical bombast and proselytizing. Is something rotten in the state of Maryland? There are signs to indicate yes. But this isn't the way to engage in meaningful dialogue to understand the other side, or bring about change... just like Zoom's war against Sun 'n Fun wasn't an effective way to bring about safety improvements.

(Plus, AVweb raised many of these same points almost two years ago, in a way that didn't make it sound like anyone had a personal vendetta against the organization.)

Zoom has resented AOPA since it launched eBrief, but if I had to guess (and that's all this is, pure conjecture) the trigger for this missive, in descending order of likelihood, was a) AOPA placed restrictions on what ANN's video crew could shoot at Expo; b) Zoom can't afford to send a crew to Palm Springs, so he's chosen to make a 'cause' of not attending; or c) AOPA banned ANN outright from the event.

It wasn't too long ago, incidentally, that Craig Fuller himself was on the first "Aero-TV" biweekly newscast. For its part, AOPA seems to be awkwardly straddling the line between humoring Zoom, and casting him off completely.
 
Last edited:
I have no doubt that Jeppesen really doesn't worry too much about AOPA. I find it somewhat surprising that ANN feels that AOPA is trying to compete with Jepp, when the AOPA flight planner is Jepp's online planner but with AOPA branding.
 
murphey said:
I have no doubt that Jeppesen really doesn't worry too much about AOPA. I find it somewhat surprising that ANN feels that AOPA is trying to compete with Jepp, when the AOPA flight planner is Jepp's online planner but with AOPA branding.
Click to expand...

AOPA's old flight planner was a dumbed down version of Jepp's. It was pretty awful (as was Jepp's product to begin with). Then they switched to the new one. I was one of the beta testers, but I quickly decided it was too stupid to waste time with.

Jepp may make nice plates but all their software (including the plate viewer and all of their flight planner products) are really lousy.
 
Last edited:
AOPA does need to generate revenue to fund legit pro aviation activities, ASF, Lobbying etc. Lobbyist aren't inexpensive and nor are the other legitimate pro aviation activities in which they engage.

I am not commenting on whether the organization has become too fat and top heavy, just commenting that it takes a lot of money to accomplish what everyone can agree is their stated mission.

So even if you take out all of the "perks" that folks claim ie the Jet, and high salaries etc and bring the organization back in line with what even its harshest critics urge, Dues alone will not create enough revenue to engage in the legitimate pro aviation activities. So the question is how do they generate that money?:dunno:
 
I just don't understand pilots who are so jealous of the AOPA staff.

Had it not been for the AOPA and EAA we would TODAY be paying 'ala carte' for every contact with the ATC system, as they do in most of the world.

Want to practice an ILS at HYI at midnight? What's your Visa number?

Is anyone really broken hearted if AOPA goes with someone other than $porty's for their logo merchandise?

I swear, a huge number of general aviation pilots seem ready to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

In my opinion ANN is 95% junk, mostly just regurgitated press releases and rambling irrational editorials. In my opinion some of the personal claims made by the editor are real howlers, even by the standards of Friday night hanger flying.
 
SkyHog said:
Spike - have you tried? I have.

It didn't get very far.

edit: Also - totally forgot to mention the article in the OP - Zoom is a nutjob, and an attack artist, but he got this one right on the money, unfortunately. AOPA is a wasteful, useless organization. I hoped for change with Craig Fuller, I rejoined because of it, but after a year of seeing the same "do nothing" tactics, I let my membership lapse again.

We really need better representation.
Click to expand...

I could have written the same exact post. I contacted them about their association with two big names who charge a lot of money for their endorsement and affiliation. I got nowhere. I also tried to have a discussion about going from a piston twin for business use to a full ownership private jet. Again, I got nowhere. Oh - and to add insult, they blocked tracking of the plane that my dues paid for! Who does that sound like?

So when they sent me a few dozen renewal notices - they got nowhere. AOPA has very little to do with GA anymore, and they surely don't represent my political views so, eff em, sideways, with a rusty crowbar.
 
you seem to have believed the AOPA party line that they had any influence at all on congress on User Fees.
 
SCCutler said:
AOPA, at its core, remains a member-driven organization, and only with productive input from its members can it define its mission better.

Never be afraid to offer concrete and productive advice.
Click to expand...

Spike,

you know I highly respect your viewpoint.... great advice.

As I read this and as I apply some "inside" knowledge that I've learned from others much more in the know than I (beyond that I will not comment), the question that's left lingering in my mind is "who is the real membership/constituency for the organization". It is not inexpensive to lobby, and many GA pilots are noted for being "frugal". That said, as the organization raises more funds from these "strategic partners", do they become the constituency - or do the rank-and-file pilots remain the key constituency?

Money does talk in Washington, both within the halls of government as well as the halls of membership organizations.

AOPA remains one of the most influential organizations serving individual GA, but I note a decided tilt in the publications lately toward higher-end GA.

Bill
 
wsuffa said:
Money does talk in Washington, both within the halls of government as well as the halls of membership organizations.

AOPA remains one of the most influential organizations serving individual GA,
Bill
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. The Inhofe situation brought the value of AOPA in to clear relief. AOPA has been whining and supposedly lobbying for years if not decades for something like a pilots bill of rights. With zero, zip, nada influence anywhere on the hill. Once Inhofe got busted and went through the ringer one time for an infraction, viola - we suddenly have a pilots bill of rights.

AOPA has almost zero influence on the hill, and less than zero in the WH. They've never stopped anything from being done to pilots, and the most egregious example is the ******* customs check. It makes me furious that I have to check into and out of my own country with the federal govt. It's obviously against the law, and I can only imagine what would happen to any legislator that had the balls to try pushing this through for car traffic. It's ludicrous.
 
docmirror said:
They've never stopped anything from being done to pilots, and the most egregious example is the ******* customs check. It makes me furious that I have to check into and out of my own country with the federal govt. It's obviously against the law, and I can only imagine what would happen to any legislator that had the balls to try pushing this through for car traffic. It's ludicrous.
Click to expand...

I am not defending AOPA when I say this, but the border crossing issue is really not an AOPA issue. All the aviation organizations (AOPA, EAA, NBAA, others...) AND business travel organizations have been unsuccessful at challenging that.

Remember that the advance notification rules apply to GA and commercial passengers alike, and remember that Secure Flight applies to large GA and commercial passengers alike (fortunately, small GA is currently exempt from SecureFlight): under Secure Flight an airline CANNOT issue a boarding pass to a passenger unless the Government says OK, likewise large GA can't board passengers unless they get GOvernment OK. If the airlines can't fight it, no way GA will win.
 
wsuffa said:
I am not defending AOPA when I say this, but the border crossing issue is really not an AOPA issue. All the aviation organizations (AOPA, EAA, NBAA, others...) AND business travel organizations have been unsuccessful at challenging that.

Remember that the advance notification rules apply to GA and commercial passengers alike, and remember that Secure Flight applies to large GA and commercial passengers alike (fortunately, small GA is currently exempt from SecureFlight): under Secure Flight an airline CANNOT issue a boarding pass to a passenger unless the Government says OK, likewise large GA can't board passengers unless they get GOvernment OK. If the airlines can't fight it, no way GA will win.
Click to expand...

Bill, I really don't care too much what comm ops do. Well, I do care in the grander scheme of things but that's not a valid comparison. I have a private aircraft, private boat, a pair of Floorshiems, and a private car. I use my private aircraft and car to cross international borders. I could use my boat and shoes as well. There is no case where I need permission from the federal govt to cross an international border with my car, or my boat or walking. However, if I want to fly my own plane, out of my own country, I need to get permission to leave, and then come back in. This is not right, and should not be allowed to stand.

As for Commercial ops, I would be fine with US citizens leaving the country without a permission slip, but I realize I'm one of those wacko libertarians that would like to think I have the appearance of freedom, if not the actual fact of it.(sorry to dangle that participle)
 
I have no idea whether AOPA is effective as a lobbying organization or not. All I have to go on is the incessant puff pieces they themselves publish.

Does anyone have or has anyone seen any independent information on the organization's effectiveness?
 
airdale said:
I have no idea whether AOPA is effective as a lobbying organization or not. All I have to go on is the incessant puff pieces they themselves publish.

Does anyone have or has anyone seen any independent information on the organization's effectiveness?
Click to expand...

I don't, but for $45 bucks a year, I get a magazine that I enjoy and I hope they get some things done or more specifically I hope they STOP things from getting done in DC.
AOPA isn't a perfect organization by any stretch of the imagination, but it's really all we have to do something for General Aviation in DC and in our states. I personally haven't ever bought any AOPA merchandise from Sporty's, never really wanted any. I don't mind the fundraising, I haven't ever given, so they leave me alone. The "partnerships" are about making money for the organization, I doubt they could operate strictly on dues from members. But for all the bitching and complaining about the organization, who has a better solution for us small plane owners and pilots?
 
docmirror said:
Bill, I really don't care too much what comm ops do. Well, I do care in the grander scheme of things but that's not a valid comparison. I have a private aircraft, private boat, a pair of Floorshiems, and a private car. I use my private aircraft and car to cross international borders. I could use my boat and shoes as well. There is no case where I need permission from the federal govt to cross an international border with my car, or my boat or walking. However, if I want to fly my own plane, out of my own country, I need to get permission to leave, and then come back in. This is not right, and should not be allowed to stand.
Click to expand...

What you're missing is that it's all part of the same thing. You currently need government permission to cross the border whether you're on GA or commercial. Both came into being at the same time.

You really need to rail against both if you're going to rail against one. They are inextricably tied together. You go by air, you're subject to the rule.

I'm not defending the rule - just stating that it's the same rule that covers both. And it's beyond the reach of any membership organization because it's done in the name of "security".

My point was (and remains) this: if you want to make a case that AOPA is ineffective, and perhaps more ineffective than some others, I believe that you need to find a different example. That example does not, in my mind or experience, support a finding of an ineffective organization.

As for Commercial ops, I would be fine with US citizens leaving the country without a permission slip, but I realize I'm one of those wacko libertarians that would like to think I have the appearance of freedom, if not the actual fact of it.(sorry to dangle that participle)
Click to expand...

No disagreement at all.
 
Last edited:
More web clicks for Zoom to point out the obvious. If it bleeds, it leads.

AOPA has needed to drop the "O" from their name since before I was a pilot. They claim they're getting better deals on things like Insurance, etc... through large membership numbers, but in reality, their products aren't any better priced than shipping them yourself.

Seen any ratings of service shops or product quality tests in their magazine? No... Head on over to Aviation Consumer for that.

Legal Services!? What a joke. Keeps the Yodice family in the manner to which they're accustomed and they get a free advertising column every month for a new doom and gloom story, in which they clearly state that they're ineffective and never win cases for their clients. Just "warnings" about how to avoid FAA shenanigans on your own.

Fuller? Still haven't figured out what he does.

I badgered the Junior Twombly to post the actual price tags of the improvements done to the "Better than new 182" to show real 182 owners what they'd cost and who to have the work done by. He even hinted they'd do it. Disappeared into the great big dark hole of free stuff given to them by vendors to rebuild that airplane. How are articles on upgrading a 182 useful to any 182 owner without prices?

The organization has no mission other than self-promotion. I got an e-mail last week with Yodice Jr's mug on it, asking me to utilize Legal Services.

My renewal was automatic this year. I should have stopped it. Could have gotten more out of sending it to CPA's show attendance fund. At least one can walk up to John at Oshkosh and ask an opinion on something real about a Cessna and get one in person. Money better spent.
 
I stopped my contributions some time ago and honestly haven't missed it. They do have lots of pieces of self-promotion, but I too question their actual effectiveness. Their main claim concerns the ever present threat of user fees, but why any Congresscritter would vote for one goes a bit over my head, politicians usually don't cede authority unless prodded to do so.

Given the number of losses of our freedom and ability, I wonder if they have any pull at all. And yeah, a Senator doing a dumb stunt was enough to get what they wanted all along. Shows how powerful they are.

Indeed, the only initiative I'm aware of is their sophomoric plea to get pilots to fly recreationally sans medical. You know, the one the outgoing FAA director called "dead on arrival".
 
denverpilot said:
More web clicks for Zoom to point out the obvious. If it bleeds, it leads.
Click to expand...

Today's page view total is likely akin to a dog farting into the wind, instead of a gerbil. As of this moment, the story has been on the site for over 16 hours, and it's garnered one comment and nine retweets. Zoom does moderate comments (I post there occasionally, but as I'm considered persona non Zooma they never show up) so there may be more comments waiting in the queue.

I never had access to the actual traffic numbers (and, as has been noted by others before, nor did any of the marketing people hired to sell advertising on what was purportedly the world's most popular aviation news site) but according to readily-available page tracking sites, ANN does not attract anywhere near the number of page views that AIN or AVweb garner. Those figures should be taken with skepticism, too, but would tend to support my impressions while I was there.
 
Last edited:
Fuller responds: http://blog.aopa.org/aopanow/?p=1301

Among the highlights:

"Jim, I have tried meeting with you to understand your point of view and I have ignored you. Both approaches seem to take me to about the same place.

"I start every day trying to make a positive difference in this space we call general aviation. If I am guilty of anything, it is in believing that others in our community start their day the same way. While from time to time you test this belief, I will continue to embrace and hold on to my optimism. It’s who I am.

"What really sustains my belief in the goodness and enduring nature of our general aviation community comes not from sitting at a desk and writing a blog, it comes from being out with people."
 
So they're ticked at each other, and today's AOPA e-mail news contains this:

"Pilot Chews help fight fatigue
Say goodbye to pilot fatigue and fly safer with Pilot Chews. AOPA members save 20% on their first Pilot Chews purchase. They are designed to give you more energy, increased alertness, faster reflexes, improved memory, maximized night vision, and other benefits. Works in 20 minutes and tastes like candy! Join the tens of thousands that are benefiting from Pilot Chews. Enjoy free shipping on orders over $50."

Yeah... great. F---ing Pilot Chews. What are we, dogs?
 
airdale said:
Re the ad hominem attacks on Campbell, those who don't like him or don't trust him can ignore the opinions in his article. But there is a fair amount of factual material presented, and I don't think he's making any of that up. None of it really surprises me except the fact that the advertisers have apparently risen up.
Click to expand...

One of the signs of either insanity or cowardice is referring to yourself it the third person like this Jim.
 
Maybe zoom didn't like this month's AOPA Box Wine too much...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top