My main problem is with negative open ended questions. Its the " Have you stopped beating your wife yet? " syndrome.
If Gaius Baltar had a genuine interest in understanding the issues he raised, most of his questions would be answered by 20 minutes of research on the Angel Flight website & / or google. If GB had done a modicum of research and asked a genuine question, then I'd respect that and give it a reasoned response.
Gaius Baltar's questions smack of a fishing expedition with a hidden agenda.
I've done a handful of Angel Flights. I had a particular trigger to start which was a long way from free fuel. My opinion of both the Angel Flight organisation and the benefit that the flights provide has increased dramatically since I started doing them. I'm similarly impressed with the Earth Angels who do the running around on the ground. I'm guessing I may have shared some of FTDK's reservations before I started (I agree with most of his posts), but that started to change as I went through the registration process and dramatically changed after my first flight.
My next Angel Flight is in a couple of weeks. I'm expecting to fly to the pick-up destination the night before and stay overnight at my expense to be ready. And I miss a day of billable time. To suggest that I'm doing this for free fuel is just plain insulting. None of the guys I know who fly for Angel Flight do it for cheap flying.
My personal observation (based on observation rather than research) is that there is a significant difference in the nature of Angel Flights between states, which reflects the differing health policies of each state. I think the Victorian Government has now publicly conceded that it does not plan to provide the same level of healthcare in regional areas. At least in Victoria, most chronic diseases require treatment at hospitals in inner city areas of Melbourne. But Victoria has a very limited intra-state air service (or rail for that matter). Thus Angel Flight fills a void. I won't colour this post with tales of some of the people I've flown, but I despair at how some of them would deal with their schedule of medical visits without the opportunity to turn a 3 day trip driving into a 1 day trip flying. And sitting in a car for a day after treatments like chemotherapy would be a difficult experience, let alone being a mother on your own driving your 4 year old daughter back after chemo.
For whatever reason, we have a society that relies on non-government funded charities to fill the gaps in healthcare. This is why the chronic disease charities exist - Asthma, Diabetes, COPD, SIDS, the various cancer charities, the list goes on and on. In a perfect world there would be no need for any of them or Angel Flight. But that's not the world we live in.
Unfortunately, there are a number of charities that exist primarily for their own purpose. I'm working through the most recent senate committee on this topic as a part of a benchmarking exercise. A key indicator is the ratio of internal admin expense to funds raised. Some organisations top out at 80%, best practice is under 15%. Angel Flight discloses its as being 15%. But, I think you can tell the committed organisations from the attitude of the staff, and the staff at Angel Flight impress me. Its a public company (not Pty Ltd) so its required to be audited and there is a reasonable amount of separate government (ATO) scrutiny on charities with tax deductibility status for donations. So I'm happy enough with its bona-fides.
In my opinion everyone should play a role in some sort of community service, let alone those of us who can afford to fly. For my part, I intended my role on the board of a reasonably well known charity to be it. But happenstance got me started doing Angel Flights and I'm pleased to be doing it.
Happy to debate anything with people who have done some degree of knowledge or have done some homework and have an inquiring objective. Respect anyone who can do some research, form an opinion then step up and ask a question. Have no tolerance for lazy sniping questions that seem designed to leave a taint rather than solicit a genuine response.