Does AOPA work against professional pilots?

[Way2Broke]

The more and more material from AOPA I read lately they seem to have a agenda of working against the professional pilot. I'm surprised that they have the money to pay their employees with all the mailings and and renewal notices I get every year. Don't get me started on the magazine that repeats itself every month. I'm starting to wonder if being a AOPA member for the prepaid legal is worth it anymore.

 

[pilotyip]

AOPA provides a great service to professional pilots who like to fly, as opposed to those who feel it is just a job. The AOPA has almost singly handed defended General Aviation against the on slot of all the forces intent on the demise of GA. The US is the only country in the world where an average citizen can still fly for a reasonable price. A country where you can teach your son and your grandson how to fly so they may enjoy the professional you so deeply cherish. I love my AOPA magazine; I love giving money to my special interest group, the AOPA PAC, and wish them the best of luck as they carry on this necessary crusade against those who want GA in the US to match India and China. Which group are you in Waytoo?

 

[DrewBlows]

AOPA usually opposes ATA, but that doesn't mean they oppose professional pilots. ATA works against professional pilots on a steady basis.

 

[Way2Broke]

First of all let me point out that there is a question mark in the thread title. I am simply stating a question and looking for feedback and interesting discussion while I sit at the apartment on call.

My take on it is that AOPA promotes flying in general, and that they have at the very least attempted to keep flying affordable and as unregulated in the USA as possible. Some things like insurance, gas prices, etc are out of there hands. However, sometimes I think they go too far. I love flying, but this career is all about timing. My commercial check ride was scheduled just after September 11th. For that reason I come from a generation of pilots that had to pay some dues. It wasn't Commercial Multi and off to a jet you go back then. I don't come from alot of money, and what I have I have earned. Paying back my student loans is what keeps me "WAY2BROKE." It was my choice to become a pilot and it was my choice to take out loans to do so. I understand that. For once I would like to see AOPA write about the sacrifices that one must go through to become a pilot. Give the 19 year old kid real idea of what he is getting himself into. Write a article about ways to keep flying as exciting as it was when you first signed up for flight training? How about a article about how some people still enjoy flying a six pack? Or a article about financing your flight training econimically? Or how to deal with fatigue in a real world way? Or alternative ways to become a professional pilot besides going to some large academy. You get my drift... be a little more honest.

Oh let me say this before I go on, I work with a 250 hour commercial straight to a jet type guy. And let me tell ya his enthusiasm, and down right excitement about going to work is very refreshing. He loves his job! I get so sick of every cockpit conversation turning into I hate this, I hate that. I've read more than one CVR that gos from complaining about work to a crash in 5 minutes. There is nothing wrong with being happy people!!!

Okay carrying on......

I am against outrageous user fees but AOPA is against ANY user fee. The proposed user fees that they are raising such a stink over is per flight and would be somewhere in the ball park of 25 dollars per flight and would only affect turbine powered aircraft. If you are in GA and have the money to own a turbine powered aircraft I don't think that 25 dollars is going to change rather or not you take that flight down to Florida. In the whole scheme of things this really does not amount to much. AOPA's stance is that user fees are about being a tax break for airlines. I don't think that is true as most airlines pay landing fees and service fees much higher than GA planes in general. And even if it is a "tax break" as a professional pilot I don't see what is wrong with my company getting a "tax break." After all if my company makes more money than in theory I have more job security.

I don't mind the magazine, but what I do mind is the renewal notices that start 6 months before my membership is up and they come frequently. I actually enjoy the weekly e-mail magazine more than the paper version, but thats just personal preference. It just seems that they waste alot of money on things like mailing that would be better off spent lobbying to keep airports open and for funding for airports. Lets not kid ourselves here, my annual membership doesn't make them any money, all the ads in the magazine makes them the money they use to power the Washington powerhouse.

Am I happy that AOPA exsists? Of course. Do I think its resources could be better used? Definitely.


Hmmm... well that was a bit of a rant and I am sure I left things out but maybe that better illustrates my point? What ya think YIP? Understand where I am coming from now? I value others opinions so have at it.

I have fun while at work doing my job but I have not flown "for fun" in about 3 years because I don't have the resources to do so. Want to take me up for a joyride sometime YIP? It would make my day.

 

[Princedietrich]

I think the big stink that is being raised about the proposed user fees isn't specifically to the fact that they ARE being proposed. In my opinion, the worry is coming from the "trickle down" theory that could very well come into play.

The current proposal says that anything turbine powered is going to have to pay the user fee, leaving the piston-poppers completely exempt. As I understand it, the user fee system that is in place in many other places on the planet started out as a limited user fee that applied only to a select few but eventually expanded to include all. The theory is that the governments involved looked at the influx of cash from this segment subject to the fees and decided that what was good for one was good for all. Therefore the user fees expanded to include everyone, and the result is the exhorbitantly expensive flying atmosphere we see in Europe and elsewhere.

I believe that the user fee paranoia is that once the bean counters see all the money coming in from the turbies, they will then turn to the pistons. They'll see a large pool of untapped revenue and expand the fee structure to include them as well. AOPA's stance of being against all user fees stems from this paranoia, in that a fee levied against some will eventually be levied against all.

Just my 3 and a half pesos.

 

[Way2Broke]

Just my 3 and a half pesos.

That will buy you a pizza in Texas. But that is in another thread in the non aviation chat area. :nuts:

 

[avbug]

I'm starting to wonder if being a AOPA member for the prepaid legal is worth it anymore.

No, because the AOPA legal plan expressely doesn't cover you during an appeal, and that's when the legal counsel is really needed.

What you do need is the real Prepaid Legal, to be found at http://www.prepaidlegal.com/.

The AOPA plan is a token joke, as is their life insurance...which doesn't cover you if you're piloting the airplane!!! Or if you fly for a living.

For that reason I come from a generation of pilots that had to pay some dues.

That's been the case for many, many years.

 

[Way2Broke]

That's been the case for many, many years.

You mean it was the case for many many years? And will be again at some point. I'm not complaining I'm just saying that timing is crucial in this profession. As long as a crew member is qualified to be in a seat and is capable of being in that seat I don't see any problem what so ever with that pilot occupying that seat. That is why it requires an ATP to be a captain. Teaching FOs is a large part of being a Captain.

Are you a AOPA member avbug?

 

[avbug]

Not presently. I have been a member on and off for many years, but have some fundamantal disagreements with AOPA and they way it's run. I've discussed some of those thoughts with Mr. Boyer, who agreed on some, and disagreed on others.

So far as hiring trends...every ten years we go through the same cycles of hiring. Right now we're at the top of that cycle, with a lot of hiring going on. It's been like this for many years.

 

[doog]

I am against outrageous user fees but AOPA is against ANY user fee. The proposed user fees that they are raising such a stink over is per flight and would be somewhere in the ball park of 25 dollars per flight and would only affect turbine powered aircraft.

It's a slippery slope though. How would that user fee be collected? The administration alone would probably wipe out any benefit. And once you start with one user fee, there will be an inevitable fee creep. The argument is a really a philosophical one. Do you think ATC services are "inherently governmental", or do you think access to the skies should be sliced and diced as profit centers for corporations? I side with AOPA on this one, and thankfully so do most "professional" pilots.

 

[DrewBlows]

Airlines are not proposing user fees because the system is under funded. The FAA is totally funded and is slated to stay that way for the foreseeable future.

User fees are a way to pass the costs from airlines to anyone else...in this case general aviation. There is no question there are some business jets that get a free ride so-to-speak (which isn't even technically correct because they still have to pay gas tax), but for the most part general aviation use smaller airports away from the busiest airspace in this country. The airlines pay a larger portion to fund the FAA but they also use a larger portion of the system.

Don't be fooled by the ATA, they are out to serve one interest alone and that is airline profits. That's not to say that airlines profiting is a bad thing, I am happy my company is making money, but I'm not counting on the 'trickle down' to affect my pay check considering they made money during bankruptcy at the same time they demanded pay cuts from us...but I digress.

Further evidence the ATA is only looking out for it's own interest is it's refusal to bare any responsibility to the endless delays this summer. Instead they blame air traffic controllers and the FAA, in general. They are partly right, but if they didn't schedule more flights than a particular airport could handle there wouldn't be delays. Their solution? Give airliners priority handling over GA aircraft.

The bottom line is the airlines have fabricated a problem that doesn't exist (aviation funding) and refuse to address or even acknowledge the over crowding of many northeast airports.

 

[Way2Broke]

My problem with the user fees is that I know just like any other fee from the gov't (toll roads, lottery, etc.) they will take the money generated and put it towards airports and the ATC system, but they will take the existing money being put towards improvements and slash it, making a net gain of zero. If it worked like it was suppose to I would be for it, but it doesn't.

We all know that airlines take priority over small GA aircraft when in theory they arn't suppose to. Same reason freighters will get vectored all over the sky so United can get in. Its just how it works. No need to fix something that isn't broken there.

 

[pilotyip]

Put the fees where they need them like slots at LGA, TEB, EWR, etc. leave me at 7D2 alone.

 

[DrewBlows]

We all know that airlines take priority over small GA aircraft when in theory they arn't suppose to. Same reason freighters will get vectored all over the sky so United can get in. Its just how it works. No need to fix something that isn't broken there.

I've never seen this. It's certainly true small airplane and jet speeds don't mix which at times makes it appear like the airliner is getting preference, but I don't think that's the case. For instance, a jet 15 miles from the airport is closer to the airport, in point in time, than a small piston (and even some turboprops) 7 miles away. Just my opinion.

 

[Princedietrich]

I've never seen this. It's certainly true small airplane and jet speeds don't mix which at times makes it appear like the airliner is getting preference, but I don't think that's the case. For instance, a jet 15 miles from the airport is closer to the airport, in point in time, than a small piston (and even some turboprops) 7 miles away. Just my opinion.

I'm inclined to agree with Way2Broke on this one. I've seen first hand how the airliners will get priority handling over others. When I flew freight, there would be many times that I'd be vectored all over kingdom-come so that an airliner can get in ahead of me. This is regardless of the relevant speeds and who got to the airport first. I've also seen this happen not only in jets (specifically a Lear 35) but in turboprops and pistons too. When flown on a freight profile by a properly trained pilot, a Caravan or Baron can and will outrun any airliner on approach out there. They don't necessarily have the forward speed, but in descent and in the ability to slow from cruise speed to approach/landing speed these planes have the heavy metal beat.

 

[PAPA FOX!]

No, because the AOPA legal plan expressely doesn't cover you during an appeal, and that's when the legal counsel is really needed.

quote]



I thought that most enforcement action cases are settled without having to appeal before an ALJ.

Often times what might warrant a 90 day suspension might be reduced to 30, or a certificate action is dropped in exchange for a civil penalty, etc.

Certainly this legal plan would be beneficial in these matters.