Frankly I think that the name issue is a complete red-herring, as it is in most corporate re-branding exercises.
Either the PFA is providing the service it's members want and need, or it isn't - what it's called is irrelevant. And if it isn't, it's up to the members (and staff of-course) to sort things out.
Given that GA keeps changing (regulations, EASA, airspace, etc....) it's almost certain that at any point the PFA isn't providing exactly the right service and needs to improve (ditto BMAA, BGA, AOPA, etc...). Given that, why on earth are they wasting valuable time and resources mucking about with a well established and known name, however anachronistic it may be?
G