Darren Pleasance’s letter to AOPA Board led to his departure

Half Fast said:
I have emailed Jim Hauslein twice. [email protected] (Without reply, no surprise.)

So far, I have been unable to find contact information for the other board members. If you have it, please share. Their names and bios are here, https://www.aopa.org/about/governance/aopa-board-of-trustees , but there are no email addresses or phone numbers.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t expect a reply to communications. Rarely will anyone admit a mistake. Lack of contact information shows a lack of transparency and desire to interact with members. This is not great for the organization.
 
flyingron said:
If you get enough people to vote with their wallets, the thing collapses under its own weight.
Click to expand...

The AOPA gets less than 1/4 of its revenue from dues. Let's suppose 10% quit over this (probably less, but just supposin'). That's about a 2.5% revenue loss. I doubt that will get much notice.

OTOH, if that 10% starts making a lot of complaints to AOPA advertisers, a few advertisers might make a few calls, maybe downsize or pull an ad here and there. I could be wrong, but that might get a little attention.

We need to whack them in every way possible. Pulling proxies, pulling memberships, letters and articles in non-AOPA pubs, contacting advertisers, calls and emails to the AOPA, etc., etc. Just one approach in isolation won't work, but many together might.
 
I used the chat function to request contact info for the Board of Trustees. Here's the first response:

1771000360454.png

I told Tammy I was sure the AOPA had contact info for its own board, and here's the next response:

1771000388582.png

I don't see much point in continuing to support an organization that avoids contact with its membership. For what little it's worth, Tammy promised that emails sent to [email protected] would be forwarded.
 
It's interesting to see this discussion. I was an AOPA member quite a while back, but dropped my membership because I felt that EAA was much more representative of me and my interests, and a better steward of the membership dollars. There is another organization (non aviation related) that, like AOPA, is a legacy organization whose board seems to have gone the wrong direction. They've even started stating that membership dues (and therefore members in general) are no longer very important, and they're concentrating on drumming up bequests.

It feels (in both cases) like an organization in a slow but inevitable death spiral, with executive management trying to milk as much cash and self-satisfaction out of it as they can before it finally breathes its last. It's sad; in both cases, I'd be happy to re-join and support them if they weren't so damaged.
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
I have emailed Jim Hauslein twice. [email protected] (Without reply, no surprise.)

So far, I have been unable to find contact information for the other board members. If you have it, please share. Their names and bios are here, https://www.aopa.org/about/governance/aopa-board-of-trustees , but there are no email addresses or phone numbers.
Click to expand...

I would suggest emailing to [email protected] instead. Supposedly, they are actually tracking the numbers on that account.
 
Aviatorbrew said:
I always thought, just a feeling, no actual basis, that the plane give a ways and scholarships are rigged. For a while it seemed like the planes went to buddys of people from the aopa and the sob story’s that it took to win a scholarship where pretty unbelievable.
Click to expand...
People were claiming that when Pleasance was hired as he was apparently friends with the rv10 winner.
 
I got an email from Social Flight that Pleasance will be on live at 8 PM 17 February. I tried to register and the link is broken and the website is blank. Either cyber warfare or overload servers?
 
Maybe we start a new association? Does anyone have any experience in that?
 
I understand the urge to do "Something"(TM). Unfortunately, I dont see how withdrawing proxies alone changes anything. If the existing board controls 50% fewer proxies, but still has enough to pass whatever they want, nothing changes. As I understand, there is no minimum quorum to conduct business, so there is no target of denied proxies to force change in that way.

There is no provision for members to put any issue for a vote of the Directors. The only candidates for Director must be nominated by a committee appointed by the Directors themselves -- insurgents need not apply.

The one and only thing that will stop the board is enough votes to out-vote their proxy bank. Revoking proxies given to the board is only a first step then. If the board can collect proxies, then anyone else can too, on the same terms -- just change the name of the agent in the proxy.

If that can be done, the only thing an insurgent group can do is deny the existing board the ability to pass anything. Then, a stalemate exists, and the outsiders can leverage the in position to negotiate reforms.

Tough road to hoe. And if you were thinking of quitting in protest, non-members don't get a vote and can't give a proxy.

BTW, even if dues are only 25% of revenue, what happens to ad revenue if membership collapses?
 
IPS-Legacy said:
I wouldn’t expect a reply to communications. Rarely will anyone admit a mistake. Lack of contact information shows a lack of transparency and desire to interact with members. This is not great for the organization.
Click to expand...
I would get rather annoyed when my phone or email starts blowing up. And that's the underlying message. Not expecting it to be opened, much less replied to.

But message delivered
 
Racerx said:
Idk. I would get rather annoyed when my phone or email starts blowing up. And that's the underlying message. Not expecting it to be opened, much less replied to.
Click to expand...
I would too since I have to read all of my own email. I don't have a staff to go through that misery for me.
 
Last edited:
DJTorrente said:
what happens to ad revenue if membership collapses?
Click to expand...
Given that the Board has effectively permanently insulated themselves from the rank-and-file via the by-laws, it follows that there are really only two effective pain-points which can be leveraged: advertising income and public credibility.

The former is probably the most easily actionable. If it becomes clear to major advertisers that AOPA has become a "poison pill" in its current form, it's likely that they'll consider using their advertising dollars elsewhere. That has a tendency to affect the metrics and graphs that organizational leadership care (or should care) about.

The latter is more nebulous and would be reflected in one of two major ways: a significant drop in active membership, and public demonstrations of discontent sufficient to generate media coverage (think protest outside the AOPA tent at major air events).

I think it's worth acknowledging that there are still undoubtedly a lot of hard-working, passionate people at AOPA who genuinely want to protect and advance the interests of light GA. Ideally, we wouldn't throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, as having some representation to Congress is much better than none and AOPA does certainly offer some useful resources (BasicMed online training being one). Our concerns are really the Board's composition, actions, and especially the revelations as to how it has insulated itself from the rank-and-file members.
 
AvNavCom said:
Given that the Board has effectively permanently insulated themselves from the rank-and-file via the by-laws, it follows that there are really only two effective pain-points which can be leveraged: advertising income and public credibility.

The former is probably the most easily actionable. If it becomes clear to major advertisers that AOPA has become a "poison pill" in its current form, it's likely that they'll consider using their advertising dollars elsewhere. That has a tendency to affect the metrics and graphs that organizational leadership care (or should care) about.

The latter is more nebulous and would be reflected in one of two major ways: a significant drop in active membership, and public demonstrations of discontent sufficient to generate media coverage (think protest outside the AOPA tent at major air events).

I think it's worth acknowledging that there are still undoubtedly a lot of hard-working, passionate people at AOPA who genuinely want to protect and advance the interests of light GA. Ideally, we wouldn't throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, as having some representation to Congress is much better than none and AOPA does certainly offer some useful resources (BasicMed online training being one). Our concerns are really the Board's composition, actions, and especially the revelations as to how it has insulated itself from the rank-and-file members.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything but the baby/bathwater bit. To me, being a membership of an organization that claims to represent X thousand pilots but does not have any clearly visible (to me) mechanism for the membership to actually have any influence on the organization is dishonest. Supporting that system doesn't seem to be in the best interest of GA in the long term, even if (and that part seems questionable) what they're doing in the short term is good for GA. This seems like the time to fix it.

The alternative that I'd propose to those who don't like the lack of membership voice, but who do support the work of the organization, is to not be a member but instead donate an equivalent amount. In terms of work done to support them, it's identical financially, but it doesn't help promote the idea that there's a representative voice. Just a thought.
 
Aviatorbrew said:
I always thought, just a feeling, no actual basis, that the plane give a ways and scholarships are rigged. For a while it seemed like the planes went to buddys of people from the aopa and the sob story’s that it took to win a scholarship where pretty unbelievable.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree with you on this...

The random drawing is conducted privately by an administrator in New York, NY, around July (e.g., July 13 for 2026 sweeps). Winners are notified privately, then often surprised publicly at events like AirVenture's AOPA tent.
Click to expand...

The random drawing... why don't they hold it in public, get some average joe from audience to reach into an air blower chamber, and grab one ticket.. that will make a believer out of me.
 
Aviatorbrew said:
I always thought, just a feeling, no actual basis, that the plane give a ways and scholarships are rigged. For a while it seemed like the planes went to buddys of people from the aopa and the sob story’s that it took to win a scholarship where pretty unbelievable.
Click to expand...
It sure seemed that way, given that the vast majority of winners seemed to be people who already owned airplanes!

Brad Z said:
If the giveaways are rigged, you'd think they'd give them to people who at least seemed excited to win. Seems like most of the videos of awarding the prize, the winner had the look of "what am I going to do with this thing?" On their face.
Click to expand...
It's more like "How am I going to pay the taxes on this thing?" Most of the winners ended up selling the planes to pay the taxes and pocketing the rest to spend on 100LL on the planes they already owned.

I only remember one winner who didn't already own an airplane.
 
Just for your knowledge base, check the IRS form 990 submitted by AOPA to see the salaries of the non-profit organization.
 
The term Plutocrats comes to mind.

Must be nice to live on a street named for you.

I’m shocked there is a home in Hobe Sound for only $1000000. Must be living in the Pool House.
 
X3 Skier said:
I’m shocked there is a home in Hobe Sound for only $1000000. Must be living in the Pool House.
Click to expand...
It would have helped these old eyes if you'd had put some commas in there.
$1,000,000
 
I don't know...I really don't care what their neighborhoods look like, or how much money they make.

Switching it from pilots to comedians, I don't think there's any correlation between being wealthy and being a jerk. From everything I've heard, as an example, Robin Williams was a nice guy, as an example.

Plus, looking at someone's income as a negative would seem a little hypocritical, where while I'm far from wealthy compared to jet owners, I do fly airplanes simply for the fun of it, and that's not a common thing for most of the world's population.
 
Albany Tom said:
I don't know...I really don't care what their neighborhoods look like, or how much money they make.

Switching it from pilots to comedians, I don't think there's any correlation between being wealthy and being a jerk. From everything I've heard, as an example, Robin Williams was a nice guy, as an example.

Plus, looking at someone's income as a negative would seem a little hypocritical, where while I'm far from wealthy compared to jet owners, I do fly airplanes simply for the fun of it, and that's not a common thing for most of the world's population.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Don't care where they live, what they fly, or how much they make.

Are they representing and looking out for the interests of aircraft owners and pilots.
 
Racerx said:
Wrong Charles Lynch.
Click to expand...
That appears to be true:

Charles "Charlie" Lynch, is a former Senior Vice President at NetJets, currently resides in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

Career and Personal Details

NetJets Tenure: He spent 30 years with NetJets, Inc., beginning in 1995 when it was still known as Executive Jet Aviation. He recently announced his retirement in May 2025.

Professional Background: During his career, he played a vital role in international development, including the launch of NetJets Europe and NetJets Middle East.

Current Activities: He was recently appointed to the AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) Board of Trustees in late 2025.

Family: He and his wife, Elizabeth, raised their three children in Greenwich, Connecticut, before moving to Wyoming.
 
Hang 4 said:
Guess I called it in post 107 of this thread
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/pleasance-out-at-aopa.153423/page-5#post-3705495
Click to expand...

Here's the direct link to your post, making it easier to access.

Hang 4

Post in thread 'Pleasance out at AOPA'

No basis in facts, pure speculation on my part.
They hire a new CEO - new CEO goes out an engages with the membership, employees, regulators etc. After a while, Board asks "what are you hearing?"
New CEO makes a presentation with the plusses and minuses. Too many of the minuses are related to the Board itself and the issues it is and isn't engaging on. Board thinks, "that can't be right, let's fire his a$$ and get someone with better answers".

Again, no idea if that's what's going on, but I have seen that movie before. Had a starring role in one version of it.
  • Like
 
Tarrow said:
Just for your knowledge base, check the IRS form 990 submitted by AOPA to see the salaries of the non-profit organization.
Click to expand...
I did that. Trustees were unpaid and Mark Baker made $1.8 mil in 2024, which is the most recent 990 available.
 
dans2992 said:
Doesn’t seem like it should take $1.8m to attract someone who can do this job…
Click to expand...
I don't know Mr. Pleasance. But I do believe that there are 99.99 percentile people on the bell shaped curve who can have more impact than 98% percentile people. You may have to pay a ridiculous sum to attract those people. I'm OK with that if you are truly hiring a game changer. If you're not, you're just throwing away money.

I'd do the job for a heck of a lot less than $1.8M/yr, but telling lawmakers they are ****heads probably wouldn't advance the cause very far.
 
kyleb said:
I don't know Mr. Pleasance. But I do believe that there are 99.99 percentile people on the bell shaped curve who can have more impact than 98% percentile people. You may have to pay a ridiculous sum to attract those people. I'm OK with that if you are truly hiring a game changer. If you're not, you're just throwing away money.

I'd do the job for a heck of a lot less than $1.8M/yr, but telling lawmakers they are ****heads probably wouldn't advance the cause very far.
Click to expand...


Seems like the trustees hired a game-changer, then realized they don’t want the game changed after all.
 
dans2992 said:
Doesn’t seem like it should take $1.8m to attract someone who can do this job…
Click to expand...
Agree. But first, it's probably important to define what the job is.

Maybe there should be a public announcement of what it's supposed to be, but then they give the applicants a note that describes what they really want them to do.
 
dans2992 said:
Doesn’t seem like it should take $1.8m to attract someone who can do this job…
Click to expand...
Yes, but keep one thing in mind - you could be gone in an instant (case in point here). So the asking price has to include a cushion for when you find yourself out of a career.
If you had a great job that paid well and you had a decent chance of still being there 10 years from now, you'd probably be happy with X as your salary. But if you had an offer from a high-risk start-up, that might fold in a year or two, would you be ok with X, or would you ask for 3X (or more)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top