Downunder Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 Membership fees will rise on 1 July from $215 to $235 and two seat aircraft registration fees will increase from $140 to $165. For years I've been hearing about RAA cost cutting and making this or that more efficient. Despite these so called initatives, costs to members have only headed in one direction. Up and up and up...... Where is the consultation with the membership about this? What options have been put to the members? Please try and attend the forums and voice your opinions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted June 14, 2017 Share Posted June 14, 2017 that's 9.3% and an 18% increase, I guess that's the price you pay these days after extensive cost cutting. I reckon if the executive and board can't come up with some vaguely plausible reason for such an increase they should step down... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Those cost aren't high and I'm not rich but you ARE getting things for your money. It's not the type of show you can run without some large costs. Far more important than an actual cost increase is the direction and manner your organisation is run. Calls for everyone to resign all the time don't provide any solutions. People re applying and initial joining do incur extra work and keeping the single place cheaper is at least an acknowledgement the cheaper end of the operation exists and is spared the cost increase. Keep your, YOUR organisation accountable. by all means. Nev 1 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 that's 9.3% and an 18% increase, I guess that's the price you pay these days after extensive cost cutting.I reckon if the executive and board can't come up with some vaguely plausible reason for such an increase they should step down... It's a limited company; the time to take that sort of action has gone. This was entirely predictable, but only a few showed any interest in protecting their future. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 If the membership want to keep things like printed magazine subsidy in place, then costs will remain high. Not sure what members expect RAA to do but keep incurring losses. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 People are sick and tired of constant agro. It's been going on for years. What disturbs me is the " We know what's best approach". that appears to exist. Some confidence is OK but the elected people should be allowed to have their say. That's why they are there. To represent US. the "Permanents " are there all the time and the" blow in" board types are a nuisance, seems to be the case. If they are still holding meetings all over the place ATTEND and make your own judgement and have your "constructive" say. The "A" Team have to sell them selves and keep you happy. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 No mention of any fee rises in the May edition of Sport Pilot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Members been sent email - extract "2017-2018 Financial Plan The Board approved the 2017-2018 financial plan. The Board agreed that it was critical that RAAus return to a balanced budget and as such took the very difficult decision to increase membership fees and two seat aircraft registration fees. For a number of years the Board, together with the management team, have worked to reduce the costs that RAAus faces when delivering services to members. This has resulted in significant savings but at the same time a priority of the Board has been to deliver the core functions of the organisation and continue to register aircraft and issue pilot certificates and this has resulted in the persistence of a budget deficit. A number of new initiatives, such as the return of members market, the introduction of a joining and reactivation fee, reducing the number of full time staff and other administrative cost cutting exercises, has aided in reducing our deficits. It is imperative that we return to a balanced budget. Membership fees will rise on 1 July from $215 to $235 and two seat aircraft registration fees will increase from $140 to $165. Single seat aircraft registration fees remain the same and members looking to join for more than one year will be able to take advantage of multi-year discounted rates." The concept that members should have been consulted on price increases is interesting - does anyone think any other result than no from anyone who responds is likely? Especially considering the number who even vote What then? do they ignore consultation or send the organization bankrupt. No one likes it and it will draw significant blowback from members but If they have done all they can to cut costs - and they have done a fair bit - then what options are there? Consulting members on a clear financial black hole like the paper magazine resulted in no choice on things like this. Managing businesses well isnt a popularity contest 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRviator Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Membership fees will rise on 1 July from $215 to $235 and two seat aircraft registration fees will increase from $140 to $165.For years I've been hearing about RAA cost cutting and making this or that more efficient. Despite these so called initatives, costs to members have only headed in one direction. Up and up and up...... Where is the consultation with the membership about this? What options have been put to the members? Please try and attend the forums and voice your opinions.... When RAAus are expected to be the the CASA of Recreational Aviation, with 10,000 members and stuff-all government funding, what do you really expect? CASA operate on a user-pays system, and as an example, they quoted $1600 to issue an Experimental CoA for my RV, and that is before the Annual Inspection that I need to have done by a LAME because I haven't done the MPC yet. Perhaps RAAus should follow the CASA model after-all?Like it or not, the books have to balance. You cannot continue to run an organisation of any description at a loss, and short of fees going up and the axing of the printed Sport Pilot, what options are there? I see an awful lot of complaints about this-and-that, but no real alternatives offered other than "Get rid of the Executive". 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 ^^ exactly no need to explain fee increases to members in sport pilot, its just going to happen regardless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 When RAAus are expected to be the the CASA of Recreational Aviation, with 10,000 members and stuff-all government funding, what do you really expect? CASA operate on a user-pays system, and as an example, they quoted $1600 to issue an Experimental CoA for my RV, and that is before the Annual Inspection that I need to have done by a LAME because I haven't done the MPC yet. Perhaps RAAus should follow the CASA model after-all?Like it or not, the books have to balance. You cannot continue to run an organisation of any description at a loss, and short of fees going up and the axing of the printed Sport Pilot, what options are there? I see an awful lot of complaints about this-and-that, but no real alternatives offered other than "Get rid of the Executive". I agree the books have to balance BUT ask the core question of WHY they do not balance now 1. the printed mag is still in existence and subsidized by the membership fees paid by people not receiving it 2. the tech office is setting itself up as a great big cash black hole to keep up with the involvement in airframes they have pushed through in the tech manual ... watch this space for the inevitable new position in tech office to deal with the backlog that will build up ... and of course we are more CASA than CASA so that person will need to be a LAMA or higher ... and they are not cheap to buy... 3. online push has probably started to reap benefits in terms of ongoing costs ... but the cynic in me is whispering watch this space in the next year as the first of the regular upgrades and rebuilds of the new systems start to hit the membership in costs that start to claw back the savings to date. And this in an organisation that is in my opinion hell bent on being more CASA than CASA for the RAAus aircraft and pilots ... why? Why is there a NEED for all the very substantial changes to the tech manual that impose the additional costs on the tech office when the airframes were not plummeting from the sky and killing people left right and centre? There was NO evidence base for the radical increase in burden for EVERYONE involved in RAAus airframes and particularly the tech office so I can only sit here cynically ticking the reason box as empire building and/or I'll set up all this before moving to CASA in my next career move. Why has nobody jumped up and down (except for me) to point out the emperors new clothes par excellence with the competence of the Ops Manager who wrote an ops manual that completely ignored several groups of aircraft (combined control and foot launch) which mean that ANYONE with those endorsements NEVER need to do medicals, never need to do biennials etc And the competence and professionalism of the ops manager and the tech manager in writing two documents that do not (even if they had been operating from the same day) completely failed to cover the ground on handover of areas like registration display from one document to the other. Yes, I accept that I can be written off as a grumpy old git with grudges and nothing positive to offer ... but please, I at my own expense flew half way across Australia to go to the meeting in SA last year to try as a last ditch to get the structural issues with the changes to the whole RAAus legal entity out in the open - I was not allowed to make the point at the meeting in part and the whole election last year was improper under the constitution ... and I gather that there is another election running now which if I was half interested in helping the organisation I would look at against their documents (not ours - its a company not an association) and probably find it wanting - but I am over trying to help. 2 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billwoodmason Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 The books have to balance OK, but with the last 35 % hike and last years "inflation" increase it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect some respite if not a reduction of fees this year. The problem is excessive expenditure, trim non essential spending (ie sack the safety officer and leave CASA to do their job for one), cut back on spending resources on pie in the sky ideas (ie access to CTA, MTO weight increases and taking over the GA fleet. RAA was never invisaged to do these things. We have payed a price for becoming "more like GA" as the last CEO of CASA wanted us to do and our representatives blindly went down this path. Unprecedented interference with the Jabiru brand by both RAA and CASA has caused massive upheaval and discontent amongst members. We do not have a members voice amongst the board or the paid staff, they have an agenda driven by CASA's ideals. I have no faith in the two Mikes - they will destroy RAA as we knew it on the result of a vote they campaigned for where only 8% of the membership voted. We have been conned. I can't wait to see the last of both of them. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Maybe some overestimate the level of choice we have to ignore CASA pushes for things like extra safety oversight and more detailed clean up of old Tech related issues Perhaps we got the tech manual RAA could afford. Millions and years can be spent getting a manual near perfected and still there will be gaps and problems. CASA has set the benchmark for indefinitely delaying updates to systems and frameworks then releasing documents totally unworkable. I sure as hell dont want CASA managing RAA safety system directly - its working great for small GA?? Maybe the setup we have is cheaper than not having it. Certainly isnt many solutions around other than pretty standard gripes about staff and executive. A certainty is their replacements will be more expensive. Isnt the whole point of the CTA and MTOW to increase membership? Without it we will see fees increase and membership drop - a steady spiral down. Sadly Id suggest other pathways or SAAO's will be forced into a similar squirrel grip with CASA ultimately at the reins. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffreywh Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 until there is a viable option it may well be prudent to keep ones mouth shut and head down? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 "$215 to $235 and two seat aircraft registration fees will increase from $140 to $165." This suggests that there are differing rego fees for single set aircraft. If this be true, its a fact that had completely escaped me. Also if true makes no sense - Single seat aircraft rego uses as much administrative time & effort as two seats. I would go so far as to say by having different charges the cost of administration of the whole fleet goes up. KISS principle must be applied at all times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingVizsla Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 There's an option to do 2 years membership at the old price - just did that - so the price rise won't affect us until 2019. I guess insurance (included in pilot membership) is rising faster than inflation. The single seat fleet is about 250 (out of 3,500) and been on the register for ages, so at half the 2 seater ($25 increase = $12.50/pa) that equates to about $3,000 they have foregone, but very few of them need "looking at" compared with new 2 seater models & kits coming into Australia. Compare that with car rego - mine went up over 10% in 4 years - $50 in one year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 There's much less liability with a single seat, and much more with 3 or 4.. (Duty of care). If you just go and kill yourself it's your decision for just you. No big deal. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 can someone tell me where the old surplus went and why are we now running at a loss. Obviously progress is an expensive step. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 A few failed audits and your top people being recruited into CASA doesn't help, PLUS they used to pay US for the work WE do on their behalf. They take a tax on avgas.. They just reneged on the deal because they can. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucano Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 $20 bucks thats a discount 6 pack that I miss out on or 5 standard flat whites - will make my GP happy. As for the effort in applying for a weight increase, CTA, etc are they not to enlarge your base that is static or declining and if true that means you have saturated your current market so a responsible board has little choice. As for all the cost to CASA remember this was done by a single aircraft flying into a ferris wheel that once cracked open screamed unairworthy and lit the penalty wick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 There's much less liability with a single seat, and much more with 3 or 4.. (Duty of care). If you just go and kill yourself it's your decision for just you. No big deal. Nev Hi Nev - I get your argument but point out: 1. Just because you have a second seat doesnt mean its filled all that often but I do agree the "potential" is there even if the risk reality isnt. 2. Haven't seen too many RAA 3 or 4 seats but again I get your drift. 3 I still say that opting for a fully costed simple administrative model beats the hell out of any level of complexity (eg Australian taxation system - hugely & unnecessarily complex, costly to administer and horrifyingly inefficient) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 3 I still say that opting for a fully costed simple administrative model beats the hell out of any level of complexity (eg Australian taxation system - hugely & unnecessarily complex, costly to administer and horrifyingly inefficient) Since CASA specifically set up the opportunity for people to fly with exemptions to GA requirements as Self Administering Bodies, that's what was done under AUF and RAA, however, instead of self administering by setting up a volunteer force to manage RA, the RAA members opted to effectively give away control to a Company, with all the additional costs a company operation entails, and necessarily with paid employees doing jobs normally carried out by volunteers. As we know, with your example of the ATO at the top of the tree, a company which has to cover all the bases with paid employees, has to increase charges or go under. Even now, some of the key self administration requirements are either not being done, or are stretched so thinly, that one big lawsuit could prove a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucano Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Any group that does not operate as a limited liability company is opening their members to an unlimited liability - if I was belong to a knitting club that was not incorporated as a company I would be a fool to join. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGL Fox Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 Membership fees will rise on 1 July from $215 to $235 and two seat aircraft registration fees will increase from $140 to $165.For years I've been hearing about RAA cost cutting and making this or that more efficient. Despite these so called initatives, costs to members have only headed in one direction. Up and up and up...... Where is the consultation with the membership about this? What options have been put to the members? Please try and attend the forums and voice your opinions.... [ATTACH=full]50791[/ATTACH] I am not rich by any means...I own a plane :whistling:but $20 for my membership and $25 per year for my aircraft rego is not a lot of money, if the board is doing the job and trying to get us back in the black, I say let's trust that they are doing the right thing on our behalf... David 3 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 1. Just because you have a second seat doesnt mean its filled all that often but I do agree the "potential" is there even if the risk reality isnt. The cost of the liability insurance that comes with membership and registration is probably higher for 2 seat aircraft. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now