AOPA's Caravan for Sale

I thought you could get a nice one on Amphibs for that kind of money.
 
I hope they get asking price,as it is our money they are dealing with.
 
I guess they're hard up for money. I hadn't received an email from them in a couple of years, but last night I was sent an "Exclusive offer" for membership for only $45. I though that was the "Open Offer" rate that everyone gets. :dunno:
 
Henning said:
I guess they're hard up for money. I hadn't received an email from them in a couple of years, but last night I was sent an "Exclusive offer" for membership for only $45. I though that was the "Open Offer" rate that everyone gets. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Doubtful. Their war chest is very big.

Maybe (not likely) they are gonna sell the Caravan, pocket most of the $, and buy something with a piston engine so they have a little more credibility with the 95% of GA pilots who can't afford a turbine.
 
Henning said:
I thought you could get a nice one on Amphibs for that kind of money.
Click to expand...
Asking price looks in line with the couple others that are priced on Controller. But, IIRC they sold for $1.8-1.9 new didn't they?
 
kyleb said:
Doubtful. Their war chest is very big.

Maybe (not likely) they are gonna sell the Caravan, pocket most of the $, and buy something with a piston engine so they have a little more credibility with the 95% of GA pilots who can't afford a turbine.
Click to expand...

What's the percentage of pilots that can't afford a piston single? Must be high also.

David
 
flhrci said:
What's the percentage of pilots that can't afford a piston single? Must be high also.

David
Click to expand...

I know yours is a rhetorical question, but there are plenty of <$15k airplanes out there if you are OK with going slow and not far with one passenger. Most people can afford that if they make it a priority in their lives. With a slightly better job, an inheritance, or whatever, most people have a shot at a C-172 or maybe a Bonanza if they make it a priority.

The flipside is that very few people have the means to own/operate a turbine, and they are not just one or two steps removed.
 
Last edited:
"Cream leather executive 10-place club interior w/ forward refreshment center ..."

Of course.

I find this development to be very encouraging precisely because they don't need the cash. It's an airplane that the new guy apparently can't see a business case for, something which until now has never mattered.

Maybe Baker really is committed to cleaning house. The tipping point will be if the jet also goes up for sale and (gasp!) the doors to the secret board room swing open. That would probably get me to rejoin.
 
Henning said:
I guess they're hard up for money. I hadn't received an email from them in a couple of years, but last night I was sent an "Exclusive offer" for membership for only $45. I though that was the "Open Offer" rate that everyone gets. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Yea, but you'd get a hat too!
 
airdale said:
Maybe Baker really is committed to cleaning house. The tipping point will be if the jet also goes up for sale and (gasp!) the doors to the secret board room swing open. That would probably get me to rejoin.
Click to expand...

Same here. It was funny when they landed the Caravan at Triple Tree SC00 Sep 2013 and gave a little speech about getting back to "grass roots" flying. Cxld my memberships to EAA and AOPA before that partly due to our great economic times and partly due to feeling like they both cater to the rich guys. I think I received ten "last chance renewals" from AOPA since then.
 
I don't understand why the AOPA takes so much flak from PILOTS regarding their use of aircraft for business. If the AOPA shouldn't have aircraft for business travel, who should?

I can understand someone lifting an eyebrow at the large jet, but the Caravan? Sounds like a smart choice to me.

When members of this (general aviation) organization need to travel for business or attend an event (say AirVenture, or SNF) with six, maybe eight employees, should they be taking the train? Flying Southwest?

Maybe when the opportunity arrises to promote GA and business travel, they should fly in a formation of five Stearmans?

Gimme a break. Sometimes I think we pilots are our own worst enemy.
 
They should fly Southwest unless they can get there is a nonice piston single. Real life GA. Yeah the Caravan is a decent ride, but they are selling it, so they can ride in the back of the jet. Just like the rest of us.:rolleyes2:
Tony_Fletcher said:
I don't understand why the AOPA takes so much flak from PILOTS regarding their use of aircraft for business. If the AOPA shouldn't have aircraft for business travel, who should?

I can understand someone lifting an eyebrow at the large jet, but the Caravan? Sounds like a smart choice to me.

When members of this (general aviation) organization need to travel for business or attend an event (say AirVenture, or SNF) with six, maybe eight employees, should they be taking the train? Flying Southwest?

Maybe when the opportunity arrises to promote GA and business travel, they should fly in a formation of five Stearmans?

Gimme a break. Sometimes I think we pilots are our own worst enemy.
Click to expand...
 
ClimbnSink said:
They should fly Southwest ....
Click to expand...

Of course. In fact everyone reading this board should fly Southwest. Or in a Warrior, Archer, or Cardinal (because those are the airplanes available to me to fly).

If you have a better airplane than I have then you are a rich plutocrat and should be torn down to my level!
 
JimNtexas said:
Of course. In fact everyone reading this board should fly Southwest. Or in a Warrior, Archer, or Cardinal (because those are the airplanes available to me to fly).

If you have a better airplane than I have then you are a rich plutocrat and should be torn down to my level!
Click to expand...
They are flying with your money, not their own. In theory they should fly what the average of their members fly. Reality is I don't care what TV ministers fly or what their brothers at AOPA fly cause I don't pay for either one.
 
What's "real life GA"? Is it an LSA? A lunch flight in a 172? Aerobatics in a Citabria? Building a RV-10? Winning awards with a beautiful WACO?

AOPA represents a very diverse membership and the reality is business travel makes sense in a plane built for that purpose.

If they are attending a formation flying event, or say the Tangier Island Holly Run (google it), I doubt they arrive in a biz jet. But when leadership makes a trip to Oshkosh to discuss how the AOPA and the EAA can work together (as took place last month) I'm betting they flew the biz jet. As they should.

This whole "fat cats and their corporate jets" nonsense isn't surprising from clueless politicians (see Washington, DC, specifically the White House) but from fellow pilots? As I said before, we are often our own worst enemy.
 
Tony_Fletcher said:
What's "real life GA"? Is it an LSA? A lunch flight in a 172? Aerobatics in a Citabria? Building a RV-10? Winning awards with a beautiful WACO?

AOPA represents a very diverse membership and the reality is business travel makes sense in a plane built for that purpose.

If they are attending a formation flying event, or say the Tangier Island Holly Run (google it), I doubt they arrive in a biz jet. But when leadership makes a trip to Oshkosh to discuss how the AOPA and the EAA can work together (as took place last month) I'm betting they flew the biz jet. As they should.

This whole "fat cats and their corporate jets" nonsense isn't surprising from clueless politicians (see Washington, DC, specifically the White House) but from fellow pilots? As I said before, we are often our own worst enemy.
Click to expand...
Yeah what about all that other GA stuff? AOPA flies a jet and represents the jet crowd. But I hear AOPA has a direct line to jesus and are going to send him to save GA.
 
I never even knew AOPA had a Caravan...
 
Tony_Fletcher said:
What's "real life GA"? Is it an LSA? A lunch flight in a 172? Aerobatics in a Citabria? Building a RV-10? Winning awards with a beautiful WACO?

AOPA represents a very diverse membership and the reality is business travel makes sense in a plane built for that purpose.

If they are attending a formation flying event, or say the Tangier Island Holly Run (google it), I doubt they arrive in a biz jet. But when leadership makes a trip to Oshkosh to discuss how the AOPA and the EAA can work together (as took place last month) I'm betting they flew the biz jet. As they should.

This whole "fat cats and their corporate jets" nonsense isn't surprising from clueless politicians (see Washington, DC, specifically the White House) but from fellow pilots? As I said before, we are often our own worst enemy.
Click to expand...

I believe the average age of the General Aviation fleet is around 40 years old. Start there.

I have no problems with fat cats and their corporate jets, they pay 100% of the bills at my house.

AOPA nags us incessantly for more and more money, uses scare tactics, does ridiculous things like the Wine club. Partners up with less than honorable companies to try to hock their wares under the guise of "supporting aviation".

We are the members after all, aren't we allowed to voice that we don't think that a Caravan and a Jet is the best use of our donated dollars?

When AOPA finds a cure for cancer and makes millions off of it, I hope they buy a fleet of G650s, but while they're begging me for my $, I'll have an opinion.

Truth be told, I don't really have an opinion other than my knee jerk reaction that the money could be better spent greasing politicians, jets can make financial sense and I don't know their balance sheet well enough to call it.

But, when their nagging me for more money, taking the Citation to Jackson Hole for the weekend doesn't help.
 
If the AOPA shouldn't have aircraft for business travel, who should? I can understand someone lifting an eyebrow at the large jet, but the Caravan? Sounds like a smart choice to me.
Click to expand...
Well, it's a $2M airplane flying only about 4 or 5 hours per week. Looking on flighaware at its travels since May, the median flight duration is only an hour and twenty minutes. It is inconceivable to me that those numbers could describe a cost-effective operation.

An hour and twenty minutes means that driving (gasp!) may be cost effective. If private GA transportation makes economic sense, however, renting from an FBO or using a fractional is more likely to make the numbers work than is an underutilized $2M airplane with deluxe leather, beverage center, and toilet to comfort its occupants during their eighty-minute median flights.

Business GA is not some sort of religion where you believe in it or not. A business can and should use GA only where it is cost-effective. Even the lavish compensation that Boyer and Fuller enjoyed really only works out to a few hundred bucks an hour, though, and few if any of their out-of-office activities are even remotely urgent. That scenario doesn't create a business need for ownership of multiple turbine airplanes.

I never even knew AOPA had a Caravan...
Click to expand...
That's not an accident. Many members don't know that they have a jet, either. And few members know that they have over four years of dues, $70M or more, in their cash hoard.

It isn't your/my money. AOPA dues are voluntary, it is "their" money.
Click to expand...
No. You're thinking of Burger King or Sporty's. (No surprise, that's the way AOPA operates.) But AOPA is a 501(c)4. The IRS says that "the organization must be a community movement designed to accomplish community ends." It's the members' money.
 
ClimbnSink said:
They are flying with your money, not their own. In theory they should fly what the average of their members fly. Reality is I don't care what TV ministers fly or what their brothers at AOPA fly cause I don't pay for either one.
Click to expand...

Then kwitcher bichin! I do pay and have no problem with them owning a Caravan if it is needed. Clearly they must not need it... or they may be just upgrading to a PC-12!:eek:
 
Dav8or said:
Then kwitcher bichin! I do pay and have no problem with them owning a Caravan if it is needed. Clearly they must not need it... or they may be just upgrading to a PC-12!:eek:
Click to expand...

Sorry I shouldn't have bitched, mockery is more in order. Probably selling it so they can justify using the jet more. Vrooom. How many memberships does the jet burn per hour?:rofl:
 
airdale said:
That's not an accident. Many members don't know that they have a jet, either.
Click to expand...
I knew they had a jet, mostly because of all the complaining here. I don't have any opinion one way or another about it. On one hand they are an aviation organization, but on the other hand, even NBAA doesn't have a jet.
 
I don't care if they have airplanes. Never have. Seems like they'd be silly not to have airplanes and keep the O in their name. But I've already detailed in other threads why I find them very very weak as a O organization. The type clubs totally kick their asses there.
 
denverpilot said:
I don't care if they have airplanes. Never have. Seems like they'd be silly not to have airplanes and keep the O in their name. But I've already detailed in other threads why I find them very very weak as a O organization. The type clubs totally kick their asses there.
Click to expand...

There are two different variations of the "O", here. Type clubs cater to the "O" that is in need of type specific information on the ownership and maintenance of that specific type.

AOPA and EAA and others cater to the "O" that is in need of advocacy with the government. Strength in numbers and such.
 
How many memberships does the jet burn per hour?
Click to expand...
Interesting concept. You got me curious & I'm on holiday:

According to flightaware, N4GA flew 154.33 hours from June 4 through December 18. That's 198 days, so project that it's flying 285 hours per year.

Cessna published a handy-dandy cost estimator ("Guide to Operating Economics" cj3_goe.pdf) for CJ3 operations. Since it's a sales document the numbers are probably optimistic, but here goes: Ignoring inflation since its publication in 2011 but adjusting Cessna's $5/gallon numbers for the current $5.95 jet fuel price at KFDK, we get an estimated CJ3 flight cost of $1,428/hour. In addition, Cessna estimates annual fixed costs at $245,290. At 285 hours per year that's $860 per hour . So ... we get $2,289/hour total Cessna-estimated cost.

AOPA's 2012 tax return reports $16,214,173 in dues income. Making the rough assumption that it costs them 10% for recruiting and retention, lets use $14,600 for net dues. The tax return claims "nearly" 400,000 members --> $36.50/member.

So ... the jet burns an estimated 63 memberships per hour, or 17,870 memberships per year.
 
I expect they are selling the caravan because it is not getting used enough. Perhaps it is better to just fly the jet on short hops even if those legs cost more than it would with a caravan. Just a business decision as I see it, not everything they do has to be motivated by elitism.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I expect they are selling the caravan because it is not getting used enough. Perhaps it is better to just fly the jet on short hops even if those legs cost more than it would with a caravan. Just a business decision as I see it, not everything they do has to be motivated by elitism.
Click to expand...

I recall an article in the Pilot mag some years ago explaining why they needed/used the Caravan. At the time they had a lot of equipment, promo material, etc to haul around to various presentations around the country, and with the support crew required, it did seem to make sense. Technology has evolved to the point that what they need to haul around is greatly reduced, and they've found ways to do the job with less equipment and staff. The new guy recognized this and is dropping the Caravan.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
There are two different variations of the "O", here. Type clubs cater to the "O" that is in need of type specific information on the ownership and maintenance of that specific type.



AOPA and EAA and others cater to the "O" that is in need of advocacy with the government. Strength in numbers and such.
Click to expand...


I haven't seen (other than them being the conduit for the BMI/Apnea outcry) AOPA win a damn thing in government in well over a decade.

If that's their claim to fame, they're failing miserably.

Case in point: PBOR was brought about by a narcissistic Senator who should have had his ticket yanked. Not AOPA.
 
I just find it very odd that folks wouldn't want a GA organization to own a plane or three? I see that most of their staff also own their own planes. That's a good thing too. Are they pandering to the jet set? Yep, and I bet they get far more revenue from them also. GA is more than a 172 flying in the pattern.

Yes, I'm a member too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top