Jump to content

Predicted loss 442,000


ozbear
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OB,

 

Why not ask the person who can and will give you a straight correct answer? Viz., Treasurer Tatlock.

 

He answered the question at the Temora General Meeting last Easter. For to those who were not there, there are the minutes published on the RAA website.

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It says revenue is falling when in fact it has risen I'm not a financial wizard just asking a question ,how long can it continue with such a high rate of loss

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It says revenue is falling when in fact it has risen I'm not a financial wizard just asking a question ,how long can it continue with such a high rate of loss

The financial loss is telling everyone whether they like it or not that RAA 's days are numbered particularly due to 2 main reasons:

1. The various past & ongoing troubled internal procedures within RAA.

 

2. The soon to be introduced RPL by CASA.

 

Sometimes when you are directly involved with issues some people can't see beyond their own nose, or don't want to, however Rod Birell who obviously can forsee through these issues has raised these concerns in the recent past & is right on the money.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why with a predicted income of 2.58million$ is RAAUS predicting a loss of $442,000 this financial year?

The financial loss is telling everyone whether they like it or not that RAA 's days are numbered particularly due to 2 main reasons:1. The various past & ongoing troubled internal procedures within RAA.

2. The soon to be introduced RPL by CASA.

 

Sometimes when you are directly involved with issues some people can't see beyond their own nose, or don't want to, however Rod Birell who obviously can forsee through these issues has raised these concerns in the recent past & is right on the money.

I have a lot of respect for Rod and agree with him.

We need to not play the blame game what's done is past in my opinion it is still at the point now that it can be turned around we just need to get on top of spending somehow and get back to profit ideally or break even.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charge everyone an extra $40 a year. Problem solved.

Yep good idea but wouldn't it be better to save the equivalent per member on the spending side putting prices up may just have a greater membership drain

 

 

  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe the RPL is anywhere near as good as it could have been . It may or may not have much effect. Lack of direction and certainty is the biggest negative factor and I blame CASA. They are the ones who determine which direction we go in. The BUCK stops with them. I don't think they care about anything other than airlines and self regulation is the big thing there. Is it do nothing much and you don't get criticised? Hasn't been an inspiring last 5 years or so has it? Nev

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sound like you need three or four kids to bring back to reality, a couple in high school and one or two at uni would do it.

Got one.

Let me guess, you have to sell your house to afford the $7 GP payment.

 

Seriously, if you can't afford $40 a year, this is the wrong hobby. If you get each of your kids to give you a 20c coin each week that should cover it.

 

I know it sounds harsh, but I'm sick of all the winging in this country. People whinge just for the sake of it without even thinking about what they are saying.

 

 

  • Agree 3
  • Winner 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get CASA to pay what they should as co-funding. GA doesn't seem to have this problem.

 

Doom and gloom don't solve anything John, neither does upping the fees. Get the regulatory body to pay their fair share. Stop being negative and inject a little positive comment into this for goodness sake. Doom and gloom become self fulfilling. (my head IS GOING TO DROP OFF... WHOA IS ME...THEN...VOILA...OFF FALLS HIS HEAD.) Of course then the doctor..coffee..tea..is to blame...

 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Haha 1
  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got one.Let me guess, you have to sell your house to afford the $7 GP payment.

 

Seriously, if you can't afford $40 a year, this is the wrong hobby. If you get each of your kids to give you a 20c coin each week that should cover it.

 

I know it sounds harsh, but I'm sick of all the winging in this country. People whinge just for the sake of it without even thinking about what they are saying.

There are two ways to manage a budget, you can get more income, or you can reduce spending. In my world, reducing spending should be the first choice, this is not about finding $40 a year, this about expecting better management.

 

 

  • Agree 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick. this business "IF you can't afford (Zdollars for this and that) you shouldn't be flying/driving etc. Most RAAus people are NOT rich. IF they were they would buy a nice Beech Bonanza and have it serviced properly. There comes a time when you assess the "BANG for the BUCK". with any past Lose more numbers and the simple answer for the revenue shortfall is "Increase the fees by $40" and there you go again.

 

PS...... Another "Hung up" post I'm sending it anyhow. Better late than never. Nev

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick,Even in aviation circles it might surprise you that not everyone is flush with cash, I don't have a problem with the co-payment, but spending days standing on a display talking to the punters at Natfly or Bundy airshow , Monto or anywhere else, I can assure you that majority of flyers are trying to do it on a $30,000 rather than $130,000 dollar budget as you would no doubt be more comfortable with.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume this information ($2.5mil, $442k loss) comes from the 2013/14 budget spreadsheet on the RAA Members Portal.

 

 

 

Before we get too carried away, have a look at the formulas. Some of these are not correct; for example Cell N29 & N129 do not add up the entire line. The financial year is nearly finished, so it might be wise to compare the P&L statements with the budget. There has been some big expenditure (eg computer systems & digitising records) that may save future expenditure. A budget is a guide and best guess until reality catches up.

 

 

 

I am busy for the rest of the day, but will try to look this over tonight. So talk amongst yourselves until then, but definitely talk to Jim Tatlock.

 

 

 

Sue

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two ways to manage a budget, you can get more income, or you can reduce spending. In my world, reducing spending should be the first choice, this is not about finding $40 a year, this about expecting better management.

Well I have no idea about the credentials of management, but having said that, could it be that the problem is the same one we have with politicians in that the job doesn't pay high enough. Everyone complains about politicians pay, but the reality is that earn a mediocre salary, so it attracts mediocre people. As such we have a bunch of mediocre people with hardly a drop of qualification outside of politics who are running the country. As I said, I have no idea who runs Ra aus, but could it be that we are expecting too much from the structure we have?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick,Even in aviation circles it might surprise you that not everyone is flush with cash, I don't have a problem with the co-payment, but spending days standing on a display talking to the punters at Natfly or Bundy airshow , Monto or anywhere else, I can assure you that majority of flyers are trying to do it on a $30,000 rather than $130,000 dollar budget as you would no doubt be more comfortable with.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's important for Ra aus to remain affordable for everyone that wants to get into aviation, my gripe was with the $40 amount. I'm sure that for 95% of members, they would be able to pay this much more per year, especially if it meant saving Ra aus. Not that I'm saying it's going to come to that of that it's the only option, I was just making the point that the deficit for an organisation of this size shouldn't be the dooms day event some are making it out to be.

 

How about if everyone paid $40 but members could submit a request for exemption on financial grounds. I'm sure for many they would rather just pay the money that deal with the paperwork, but for the ones that really need it, they could get an exemption.

 

Again, not trying to pick a fight, just sick of hearing people whinge about paying $7 to see a doctor as they sit around sipping a $7 latte. I'm not saying that you, but there's been enough of it in the country the past couple of months.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't understand all the fear of a RPL - it basically the old restricted PPL with navigation option. When a few put their toe in the water and feel the cost of GA it will be over.

 

I joined RAA for the aircraft & maintenance costs - already have a GA licence and haven't used it since retirement and joining RAA ( other then for the purpose of flying my RAA aircraft into CTA).

 

If you want to fly an RAA registered aircraft you will STILL need a RAA cert. and current BFR.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems the sentiments on this site is if you cant afford it get out !!!!!!!!

 

Wouldn't it be better to have the attitude of lets see how we can make it more affordable for everyone.cold.gif.c4cdc44db1f6c401c5e88ff399ed7104.gif

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Agree 7
  • Helpful 1
  • Winner 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about if everyone paid $40 but members could submit a request for exemption on financial grounds. I'm sure for many they would rather just pay the money that deal with the paperwork, but for the ones that really need it, they could get an exemption.

The office can't get a rego renewal out in a sensible time so I am sure processing financial hardship claims would speed things up for all concerned.

 

 

  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Maj Millard

Sue is right , the deficit is in relation to last years budget. We do without any doubt need to be financed better by CASA especially when they keep loading us up with costly additional requirements that we have to comply with..........Maj.....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I think it's important for Ra aus to remain affordable for everyone that wants to get into aviation, my gripe was with the $40 amount. I'm sure that for 95% of members, they would be able to pay this much more per year, especially if it meant saving Ra aus. Not that I'm saying it's going to come to that of that it's the only option, I was just making the point that the deficit for an organisation of this size shouldn't be the dooms day event some are making it out to be.How about if everyone paid $40 but members could submit a request for exemption on financial grounds. I'm sure for many they would rather just pay the money that deal with the paperwork, but for the ones that really need it, they could get an exemption.

 

Again, not trying to pick a fight, just sick of hearing people whinge about paying $7 to see a doctor as they sit around sipping a $7 latte. I'm not saying that you, but there's been enough of it in the country the past couple of months.

How about we do wht rec flying is about....getting rid of the stuff we don't need. Basic distilled flying doesn't need top shelf RPT style safety management. We already have a regulatory framework, all RAA needs to do, is administer licenses and rego, Private GA pilots don't need an SMS, why do we? In any case, the ops and tech manuals are already there essentially as a safety system, And if they aren't why do they exist?

If you're sick of hearing about $7 for a doctor, ( as I am)why not whine about it on Facebook with those whingeing about it.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

folks

 

You are all missing a glaring hole! We have at least one additional Full time staff member looking after CASA mandated Safety Management system. She isn't doing it for love only....Add in the temp staff that the tech area were (still?) are employing and you have and additional 2 to 4 FTE to cover as compared to a few years back I think........

 

All of these positions are a direct result of CASA either lifting the bar position, or forcing us to measure ourselves against the bar position where we previously were simply ignoring it and hoping it would go away. Comparing todays expenditure against previous years expenditure is simply "wishing it weren't so"

 

There are ways to save $ in RAAus but like all organisations you have to spend some $ and time before the savings start to flow...We haven't yet in many cases started that journey let alone be anywhere near ready to bank the savings.

 

Suggesting that the past is past is a true statement there is nothing we can do about what happened in the past, but don't be so fast to forget who and why, we are paying for it today and into the future!

 

Michael Monks report on page 1 of the most current magazine is fantastic in that in it Michael identifies that the current exec/board are stopping CASA from raising the bar (and by inference our cost base) without CASA providing evidence/fact identifying that such a change will provide a direct safety improvement and address by first principles the problem that CASA has identified, or to put it a different way "CASA you say we should be doing X show us by providing real incidents where X has directly resulted in fatalities or reportable incidents, if you cant do that we are not interested! Well done to the current team for having a sensible and logical conversation to stop change for change sake. How can Michael and team possibly sell changes to us that result in increased costs if they too have no empirical data as foundation for their argument. That CASA might put something forward without that evidence shows at least to me that fault doesn't exist solely on one side of the line separating us.

 

Andy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Maj Millard

Very well said Andy, ... I may be a bit biased being part of the current team and all, but the team under Michaels very capable leadership right now have been making some great decisions lately...especially in respect to its dealings with CASA........Maj...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...