We need a new AOPA (this one is not going to change)

M

MountainDude

Cleared for Takeoff
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
1,466
Display Name
MountainDude
Home Airfield
KPDX
Just watch the first 2 min of this video:
 
I wouldn't watch anything from ANN even if I was trying to take my mind off of an ongoing root canal.
 
I turned off my auto-renewal after they got rid of Pleasance.

Current and proposed board rules still basically say that the board can do whatever they want (including dictate board candidates), no matter what the membership thinks.

My membership lapsed. Not coming back until they acknowledge the board works for the members, not vice versa.
 
I’m out. It’s clear what direction they’re heading and it’s not for most pilots or aircraft owners.
 
It’s kind of a shame. People say, “what about the advocacy” but I’ve been part of two airport actions where advocacy would have been really helpful - KFFZ and KHCR…. and AOPA was nowhere to be seen. With the cash they have, there’s no excuse.

So… I think we perhaps need a new org that JUST focuses on advocacy.
 
I watched one video from an obvious AOPA board supporter reporting how wonderfully the meeting went.
 
dans2992 said:
It’s kind of a shame. People say, “what about the advocacy” but I’ve been part of two airport actions where advocacy would have been really helpful - KFFZ and KHCR…. and AOPA was nowhere to be seen. With the cash they have, there’s no excuse.

So… I think we perhaps need a new org that JUST focuses on advocacy.
Click to expand...
Power is the ability to compel people or govt. agencies to do what you want. While AOPA has cash and claims to influence a lot of things, the reality is AOPA has very little power to do anything.

AOPA successfully convinces members otherwise so they will send money. Such as defending your right to fly, which anyone with any legal knowledge knows flying is not a right.
 
Clip4 said:
Power is the ability to compel people or govt. agencies to do what you want. While AOPA has cash and claims to influence a lot of things, the reality is AOPA has very little power to do anything.

AOPA successfully convinces members otherwise so they will send money. Such as defending your right to fly, which anyone with any legal knowledge knows flying is not a right.
Click to expand...
In both cases, there are lawsuits that could have been filed/funded. In neither case was this done. I showed up to city council meetings to speak. AOPA? Crickets.
 
dans2992 said:
So… I think we perhaps need a new org that JUST focuses on advocacy.
Click to expand...

You have a point. As an example, the GOA has been far, far more effective than the NRA on advocacy matters.

If there were such a group, the EAA would satisfy the rest of the needs of most small-GA owners and pilots, and the AOPA would be largely irrelevant.
 
Clip4 said:
Power is the ability to compel people or govt. agencies to do what you want. While AOPA has cash and claims to influence a lot of things, the reality is AOPA has very little power to do anything.

AOPA successfully convinces members otherwise so they will send money. Such as defending your right to fly, which anyone with any legal knowledge knows flying is not a right.
Click to expand...

AOPA has the power to do something pro-member, but they choose not to do it. They have the ability to lobby and financially support key Washington power brokers who deal with funding the beastly inefficient and generally unaccountable federal systems that determines how and where billions of tax dollars are spent annually on the transportation system.

When AOPA leased the Citation back around 2012 (and blocked the N number), and I learned it wasn’t being used to transport politicians around the nation for developing friends and influence, but instead was being flown for AOPA “executive use”, they lost me.

Many special interest types of associations eventually begin a death spiral when dues paying members realize their association’s advocacy for fulfilling the stated mission has become a lesser priority than the salaries and perks afforded to those leaders running the show.

“Protecting Your Freedom to Fly” has become a hollow promise, becoming more apparent every year. Seems the small group calling the shots have developed a closed system of handling the money, and they feel safe enough to rub our noses in it.
 
dans2992 said:
In both cases, there are lawsuits that could have been filed/funded. In neither case was this done. I showed up to city council meetings to speak. AOPA? Crickets.
Click to expand...
Under what legal precedent or theory did you want AOPA to file a suit?
 
MountainDude said:
Are you referring to board meetings of for-profit companies?
AOPA is member-funded and should be 100% transparent to its members.
Click to expand...

So you think the AOPA should have disclosed why they fired somebody even if doing so could result in a lawsuit and paying a large judgement or disclosure of information that damaged the AOPA’s reputation?​


Good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Under what legal precedent or theory did you want AOPA to file a suit?
Click to expand...
I believe (and I could be wrong, I’m not a lawyer) that Heber City’s “settlement agreement” with the FBO, giving the sole incumbent FBO (effectively) veto power over any additional competition on the field MAY be against FAA grant assurances.

I attended an airport advisory meeting. Someone suggested the city could offer self service fuel, and the FBOs attorney was there saying that they’d need to approve that, and to expect a lawsuit from the FBO if the city did that. (That was my interpretation of what was said).

Additionally, this FBO charges Jet A burners “multiples” of the ramp fee vs pistons. Example - ramp fee for a Malibu is a fraction of the ramp fee of the identical aircraft converted to a turbine (jet prop). Same size, same weight. I THINK that this may be a violation of FAA Grant Assurances prohibiting “discrimination” between types of airport users.

Per grant assurances, the airport “sponsor” (ie city) is responsible to ensure that fees are “reasonable and non-discriminatory”. The FAA has refused (I believe wrongly) to weigh in on “reasonable”, but I think we can make a case; maybe, that these fees are discriminatory.

Maybe I’m wrong, I don’t know. Been actually thinking about buying a few hours of an attorney’s time to ask these questions and maybe file an FAA Part 13 complaint against the city for agreeing to this.

Additionally, there is significant evidence that FFZ’s new landing fee (even for bases aircraft) is designed to hit flight schools specifically, and is really about noise, not finances. (Neither of those reasons are legal reasons to create a landing fee). AOPA didn’t even speak at the city council meeting.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:

So you think the AOPA should have disclosed why they fired somebody even if doing so could result in a lawsuit and paying a large judgement or disclosure of information that damaged the AOPA’s reputation?​


Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
if it was something like harassment, an explanation like “an HR issue unrelated to job duties” would suffice.

…and honestly, if it wasn’t some kind of HR issue like that, then their reason sucks and they screwed up.
 
Clip4 said:

So you think the AOPA should have disclosed why they fired somebody even if doing so could result in a lawsuit and paying a large judgement or disclosure of information that damaged the AOPA’s reputation?​


Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

IF that’s the case, the AOPA should have said so from the beginning, rather than giving us a cock & bull story about needing someone who was closer to HQ, then hiring a PR firm to put out more BS. I don’t believe anything the board says at this point.
 
Clip4 said:

So you think the AOPA should have disclosed why they fired somebody even if doing so could result in a lawsuit and paying a large judgement or disclosure of information that damaged the AOPA’s reputation?​


Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
They should not have fired someone if that would damage their reputation. Which it did.
 
Half Fast said:
IF that’s the case, the AOPA should have said so from the beginning, rather than giving us a cock & bull story about needing someone who was closer to HQ, then hiring a PR firm to put out more BS. I don’t believe anything the board says at this point.
Click to expand...
So you think the AOPA should have said the fired person did something bad, but we can’t tell you what it was. What world do you live in?

In most organizations, the only releasable information of persons employment is the dates they were employed without a notarized liability release signed by the past employee.
 
MountainDude said:
They should not have fired someone if that would damage their reputation. Which it did.
Click to expand...
No, it ****ed off a few current members. A whooping 177/400,000 members attending the recent meeting. The majority of AOPA members do not care about this issue and the reputation of AOPA is still intact.

I have a lot of issues with AOPA and have come and gone as a member several times over the decades, but who they fire isn’t one of them. There are several they should have fired and didn’t IMO.

AOPA grossly over compensates their CEOs, so if there is any issues be gone with them.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
So you think the AOPA should have said the fired person did something bad, but we can’t tell you what it was. What world do you live in?

In most organizations, the only releasable information of persons employment is the dates they were employed without a notarized liability release signed by the past employee.
Click to expand...

If the AOPA can now say “it’s a legal matter and we can’t discuss it,” they could have said exactly that months ago. Instead we got a lie.
 
Clip4 said:
A whooping 177/400,000 members attending the recent meeting
Click to expand...
A meeting that was placed on a Tuesday morning. Which means that if you have a day job you have to take two days off work and pay for a hotel to attend.

If they had thay on a Saturday afternoon and the turnout was the same, I'd agree with you. But I have a sneaking suspicion the turnout would be higher.
 
Clip4 said:
A whooping 177/400,000 members attending the recent meeting. The majority of AOPA members do not care about this issue and the reputation of AOPA is still intact.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the number of members at the meeting is a direct indicator of either majority opinion or the organization’s reputation.
 
It will be interesting to see how the number of members goes up or down 12 months from now, after everyone who turned off "auto-renew" has timed out.

Oh, wait--AOPA doesn't publicize their membership numbers, and there's no way to legally compel them to disclose them. Nevermind.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I don’t think the number of members at the meeting is a direct indicator of either majority opinion or the organization’s reputation.
Click to expand...
177 people sure isn’t the members coming out in force with pitch forks and that’s assuming a significant percentage weren’t siding with the board.
 
Clip4 said:
177 people sure isn’t the members coming out in force with pitch forks and that’s assuming a significant percentage weren’t siding with the board.
Click to expand...
Anybody know what turnout in past years has been? If it's normally 15-20, then 177 might be a pretty big indication.

As others have said, getting there on a Tuesday morning is tough. For folks across the country, even a weekend meeting would be a substantial committment. One can be ****ed off about the Board's recent behavior and still not motivated enough to commit the resources to show up in person--especially when one understands that doing so still won't actually effect any change.
 
someone eli5 what's wrong with AOPA, they still seem to do AOPA stuff, my insurance thru assured partners is great, membership more expensive not so great, bleh. everything's mroe expensive however, so what can you do. seem to be working on things, fuel, some airports etc...

there must be something huge, with all the emotion that's flying about
 
Clip4 said:
177 people sure isn’t the members coming out in force with pitch forks and that’s assuming a significant percentage weren’t siding with the board.
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s 399,000 who said, “AOPA is so ****ed up they’re not worth the time right now.”
 
Clip4 said:
Feel free to ask pilots at your local airport if they know who the last CEO of AOPA and what topics were presented in last month’s magazine.
Click to expand...
if those were the topics of the meeting, it’s no wonder people didn’t show up.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If you say so. You’re the expert.
Click to expand...
I've heard rumblings and even watched some videos about the current AOPA 'thing'.

I could not care less.

No, I am not a member as I dislike most flying non-profit orgs. Mosiac is a nothing burger for me... as is basic med. I guess the dozen or so people those issues do concern are happy... but most are indifferent.

When you look a the number of people in the USA, the number of pilots, and the even smaller number of airplane owners the AOPA thing is a middle school popularity contest that no one (well, I'm sure there are a dozen or two that do) cares about.

The failure of AOPA and EAA to get unleaded fuel passed is huge failure even though they did pass MOSIAC (useless) or basic med (medical deferrals were never a huge issue, numerically) they failed at the greater good (unleaded fuel).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top