Jump to content

RAA rego and membership fee rises 1 July 2017


Recommended Posts

The cost of the liability insurance that comes with membership and registration is probably higher for 2 seat aircraft.

Yes but no. The insurance costs are attached to the pilots certificate in effect as the membership has the cost included.

Nothing in the aircraft registration attaches to the insurance group policy as such.

 

I am feeling very old now but I remember the introduction of 95.25 and the FIRST legal 2 seaters ... and the rationale for additional fees for rego fees for the two seaters was ... there are two seats! Simple as that.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If the cost doesn't go up for two seats it should. You are covering risk and there's more exposure to it potentially or in actuality. The plane is also heavier for those who see weight as a problem of safety. Why should a single seat plane pay the same? (looking at it from the other side of the equation) Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try and get your own PL insurance for $235.00 a year. And that is only one thing the fee covers. If those complaining do not have any alternatives and don't put their money where their mouth is I think I have the right to call them baseless whingers.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

but it won't be $235 for long, maybe 12 months. RAA management know they can raise yearly subscription fees in the low teens and still be cheaper than going GA, so there's no real incentive to keep costs down.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a pie diagram of where the money goes? For example, how much is the insurance as a fraction of the $165? Or should it come from the $235?

 

If you pay both fees, that is $300 a year now and if you are really silly like me and do a similar thing with GFA then its more like $600 a year. All for services I could do without, so it is really money demanded with menaces.

 

If you don't pay, you will find the menaces are only too real.

 

In the meantime, ELAAA seems to be stymied by CASA inaction.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but no. The insurance costs are attached to the pilots certificate in effect as the membership has the cost included. Nothing in the aircraft registration attaches to the insurance group policy as such.I am feeling very old now but I remember the introduction of 95.25 and the FIRST legal 2 seaters ... and the rationale for additional fees for rego fees for the two seaters was ... there are two seats! Simple as that.

Exactly! 012_thumb_up.gif.cb3bc51429685855e5e23c55d661406e.gif........I have one of the Austflight Aviation`s, 95-25, WB Drifters`, responsible for creating legal twin seat instruction,way back in the early days of the the AUF....I realise it`s not all about me but all I get is increasing fees.........013_thumb_down.gif.ec9b015e1f55d2c21de270e93cbe940b.gif

 

Unless I`ve missed something, the higher Rego fee, for two seats, is just a money grab!!!!!!!!

 

Frank.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a pie diagram of where the money goes? For example, how much is the insurance as a fraction of the $165? Or should it come from the $235?If you pay both fees, that is $300 a year now and if you are really silly like me and do a similar thing with GFA then its more like $600 a year. All for services I could do without, so it is really money demanded with menaces.

If you don't pay, you will find the menaces are only too real.

 

In the meantime, ELAAA seems to be stymied by CASA inaction.

CASA know breaking a monopoly will create more issues than it solves for them

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It IS an increased cost and that's a fact. I argue for the validity of a differentiation of one and two seat planes being a justified proposition as well as a re application of a lapsed membership V/s a normal renewal being justified. Money doesn't buy much these days Franco. Try building a small shed or fixing your roof, or doing some paving or taking your wife out for a meal. or buying a Rotax Piston or radiator cap. Nev

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of decisions seem to have been made recently, including calling for nominations for new board members. The will obviously have no decisions to vote on when they are elected. by the way when is the election?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Money doesn't buy much these days Franco. Try building a small shed or fixing your roof, or doing some paving or taking your wife out for a meal. or buying a Rotax Piston or radiator cap. Nev

Spot on Nev! That`s why I`d rather have it, than them.......020_yes.gif.58d361886eb042a872e78a875908e414.gif

 

Frank.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Old surplus was a while ago,

 

I think from numbers last year, if the paper magazine was cancelled deficit would pretty much disappear.

 

It one of the largest single expenditures RAA has

 

Possibly single seat flyers complain more.

 

Seats and weight are two different risk issues.

 

I think the insurance policy ONLY covers passengers not the pilot. If correct insurance could be less. Problem then is you have insurers looking individually at increasingly small groups and at some point not worth the effort.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only 2 groups. Single pilot or 2 pob That's not complex. A two place aeroplane is automatically a much more substantial structure carries more payload, fuel and a bigger engine. If anyone was a single seater operator they would see it as a bit rough to get charged the same. It's supposed to be a USER PAYS principle and that should apply to CTA etc and other aspects as we broaden out to "be the new GA" as I've heard it called. I'm not advancing this in self interest. Just a fair go for the basic users.. Nev

 

 

  • Caution 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they did cancel paper magazine but due to all the complaining from those who cant access web based version, they continued it a a paid extra hoping to get enough paid subscribers to make it pay.

 

So far not even close so now the whole membership is subsidizing the paper magazine to the tune of $80K per year I thought I heard.

 

This is what management by popular vote brings. Fees go up AND we have no magazine

 

I follow you but not sure about the simplicity you have it down to Nev, a say 600kg single place will do the same damage as a 600kg 2 place,

 

Ive had just 3 hrs with a passenger in 700hrs flying, can I get a discount too?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the CPI rose by 2.1% so the $140 should increase by less than $3.

 

Of course, CPI rhymes with Big Fat Lie and the figure would be comical if one's superannuation did not depend on it.

 

I think the government is becoming increasingly brazen about this lie. They go through motions about a "basket of goods" but they choose just what goods to put in the basket. RAAus membership is probably not included. If you get to choose the basket then you get to choose the CPI.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Do you mean that the usual MoA between CASA and RAA does not exist? In which case why is RAA still undertaking the tasks required by the agreement in the past. Surely this would result in a cost saving? They are not required by the CAO's and without an agreement there is no basis for these actions.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you mean that the usual MoA between CASA and RAA does not exist? In which case why is RAA still undertaking the tasks required by the agreement in the past. Surely this would result in a cost saving? They are not required by the CAO's and without an agreement there is no basis for these actions.

The MOU tend to get signed at the end of the year - last years ended on 30 June and was signed on 5 June.

But don't hold your breath on CASA funding - last year it went up 0% or $109 in cash despite all the increases in oversight that we seem to have signed up for ... and it's only $118k last year and I suspect that's less than the cost of the safety officer and the IT system changes for that role that we spent let alone the additional calls and cost of the tech office.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the membership recently quoted as 9000, not the old round number of 10 000. It appears to me that the membership keeps dropping, so the costs keep increasing.

 

What worries me is that this information is nowhere to be seen from the lips of the CEO and the chairman. We keep being told how professional they are, how well they are positioning the RAA for an exiting future, etc. We dont hear about why the organisation is declining. We are told how it is the fastest growing aviation organisation in Australia, etc.

 

If I was an investor studying the annual reports and saw the companys membership declining by 25% over 5 years and making a loss every year, I would be shorting the stock!

 

I want the truth. I want to know what the real situation is and why the organisation keeps losing membership. I know the average age of pilots keeps rising, etc. but I would liker to be clear eyed bout the future. I think some in the organisation don't think we can handle the truth.

 

 

  • Agree 3
  • Winner 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those of us who constantly whinge and moan about something, and that's probably anything and everything for some, constant incessant moaners.

 

If we want to be credible and our whinging to be taken seriously - then let's see some credible alternatives that can solve ALL our problems, accompanying our gripes.

 

If we can't provide an alternative, don't moan.

 

The seemingly obvious and helpful option, would be to help those whom I believe are doing their best to keep RAAus operating in a professional way, and, taking a professional approach to the viability of OUR movement, RAAus. Those charged with running our club, Association, Company are following CASA rules, and these rules were written years ago, but not followed as they should have been by some, then CASA Audits found these shortcomings, and demanded fixes, hence the Rego debacle a few years back.

 

The rules were always there, just some, delegated with the responsibility of overseeing those rules adhered to and carried out, chose to, "do it their way," and when the proverbial hit the fan, they conveniently packed their bags and disappeared.

 

Maybe we should consider the alternative: Run RAAus out of business/close them down, who do you think we'll have to deal with then to be able to pursue our passion to fly? Exactly, CASA, and do you think they will listen to our moaning? Not on your Nellie! Do you think they will give us an opportunity to voice our disapproval with their mode of operation? Not on your Nellie! Will they consult before increasing fees? Not on your Nellie! Will fees increase? You can bet on your Nellie!

 

We're in this together, let's be supportive, or present an acceptable and workable alternative, nominate for the board, whatever we need to do if we're unsatisfied, put our money where our mouth is, and step up to the plate and make things better for us all.

 

Naysayers are part of the problem. Visionaries are part of the solution. Ask ourselves. Which camp do I belong to?

 

I'm not picking on anyone in particular, it's just that there seems a lot of dissatisfaction in some of these posts.

 

Is it FAIR?

 

Lloyd.

 

 

  • Agree 3
  • Caution 1
Link to post
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

×
×
  • Create New...