RAA financials

[cficare]

Those that are members have received the 6 monthly statement...any comments?

i reckon the upper echelon are on a good wicket!

[Jabawocky]

I would say given the workload and the amount of self regulation and administration they have to do, and with CASA pushing more onto the various orgs without spending the appropriate in funding, RAAus have done a remarkably good job to stay in the black, albeit by drinking silver.

As for your comments about some folk doing very nicely, that kind of comment as I'll informed as it is suggests that "Geoff Dixon or Alan Joyce" type packages are being offered.

I can assure you of one thing, if you run a business I am astounded at how you survive.:ugh: I suggest that you have no clue. I am happy to have my guess on this challenged because when you can run a business with the workload of RAA and have a team of staff that they do, all on half a mill a year, it's a bloody miracle.

As someone who has been in business for quite a long time I would be doubling all the membership and registration fees. With no apologies either, just an explanation of the facts. And before anyone bites on that notion, consider a decent yacht club, golf club etc etc.....and think about the task at hand.

Come to think of it........they should possibly think about 2.5 times the current rate. It would still be cheap as!

[Arnold E]

.they should possibly think about 2.5 times the current rate. It would still be cheap as!

How do you figure that? I just registered the RV and it was $130 paid to CASA once.
A medical cost $155 once every 2 years.
So I wouldnt say my RAA pilot certificate is cheap and I am glad my RV is not RAA.
CASA my even come good yet on the medicals for private flying, then it would be positivly cheap.

[Jabawocky]

Arnold, what we do with VH registered seems cheap enough on the surface, however all the CASA fees, the fuel tax, plus the government input, CASA have a nice big budget to run a huge admin org.

CASA palm off a heap of admin to RAA and they do it on a $1m budget.

When you see how little CASA fund orgs, and what they expect in return, and how much rework, rework and rework your org has to do to fend off and correct all the garbage CASA produce, then you would wond why any of us bother with private aviation.

So read what I wrote again and put it in perspective.....think about the golf club v RAA and what needs to be funded. An extra $1m into RAA coffers a year might really make a big difference to their ops. And the staff might get paid well too, at the moment I bet they are not overpaid at all as was suggested in the original post.

We get lift from air, and air is free, but nothing else is. Some expect it that way though.

[baswell]

I am happy with the financials. Having spent a couple of days in the office recently, all I can say is that everyone there does seem to work very hard.

$155 for a medical? That's good! Must have a cheap doctor, mine charges $130 and then CASA wants $75 to issue it. By the way: a CASA rep told me there will be cost recovery for the RPL and that is likely to include paying for CASA to endorse your self-certified or GP medical. I don't expect it to be completely free.

I am happy to pay my membership and registration. The amount I save by having a now self-employed experienced LAME do my 100-hourly as an L2 (well, L4) and paying $50/hour instead of the $100+ that the LAMEs at Parafield would charge, will surely save me a lot more than my membership costs! :ok:

Add to that the 50 hourly, ad-hoc maintenance, lower parts prices, the list goes on...

I reckon it is amazing what RA-Aus does on the budget they do it with and if they could do better by charging me double what they do now, there would be no resistance from me as I would still be well ahead.

[Andy_RR]

But, consider if the skies were completely unregulated, would you still go flying? I bet you would. I know I probably would.

So, all the money we pay for regulation is largely not for the benefit of pilots and aircraft owners and operators. The benefit is for others elsewhere.

...so why don't the regulators go after them to fund the cost of regulation?

User pays my arse! :rolleyes:

[Flying Binghi]

.

Those that are members have received the 6 monthly statement...any comments?

i reckon the upper echelon are on a good wicket!

Hmmm... why do the term 'Dorothy Dixer' come to mind here..:hmm:




...consider a decent yacht club, golf club etc etc.....


Yeah, raise the fee's and get rid of all them in-decent tinny drivers..:rolleyes:






.

[kaz3g]

Don't follow your line of argument, Andy. Who are these others you refer to?

Are they your passengers, your family, your fellow aviators, your neighbours or the guy in the house with his wife and kids living in the circuit area of your favourite airfield? Are they, perhaps, just someone somewhere who might be impacted physically or financially if you impact the same ground he is standing on?

People who drive motor vehicles pay for the regulation of their activities through licence fees (I just paid for another 10 years and hope to live long enough to get value from it); annual registration fees including third party insurance (about $650); road tax if you drive big ones; and massive on-the-spot fines for any infraction. Makes what I pay to RA seem a little insignificant by comparison.

RA has to be financially secure, and it has to do all the things the Regulator says it must. I can fly RA for less than one-third the cost of driving my car and that seems a pretty fair deal to me.

And, in case you aRe wondering, I also own and fly a GA aircraft.

Cheers

Kaz

[Andy_RR]

kaz, I think you made a pretty good, if not exhaustive list of 'these others', although most of the cases of cost-risk you cite would be covered by insurance.

My point is, since it needs to be spelled out, that at some point, all the regulation that the user pays for does not benefit the user, but others. The user is paying for his own shackles.

IMO, the regulation should be borne almost entirely by general revenue and if the money runs out, or it begins to cost more than the government would like, or the nation is prepared to pay for, the nation needs to decide how much regulation it will pay for - not just pass the costs on to the (much smaller) user base.

At the moment, regulation has become seen as a revenue stream for the state and the escalating costs to the user serve only to shrink the user base - i.e. there is no economic imperative to be efficient and effective in the way we are regulated.

If the user is forced to pay for the regulation, then the user should be the regulator - i.e. self regulation. Ironically, we are moving towards that kind of model in a distorted way - i.e. SAAA, GFA, RAA, ASRA etc.

[Flying Binghi]

.

via Kaz3g #8; ...I can fly RA for less than one-third the cost of driving my car...

How did you work that out ?






.

[baswell]

How did you work that out ?
I am pretty sure she is referring to the cost of registration and 3rd party insurance, not the operational cost of an aircraft. And she would be right.

[kaz3g]

Andy, I have no philosophical objection to government paying out of consol revenue...I remember when we used to receive reams of free charts and the like in the mail on a regular basis. It's always more acceptable when I receive a direct benefit, I find.

But with a licence comes responsibility and one of those responsibilities is to ensure that others do not suffer harm due to our activities and, if they do, that they are compensated accordingly.

Motorists are heavily regulated; the latest Road Safety Act in Victoria now occupies two volumes! They have to pay for licence, registration and third part person insurance. I believe they should also have to pay third part property because I pay comprehensive cover.

A significant boost to revenue comes in the form of enforcement of the RSA and, make no mistake, governments look to infringement revenue to fund not only the police who dish them out, but other things as well.

So I can' t see any huge disparity or government conspiracy in having to pay for RA to look after my licence requirements and yes, I can see RA or SAAA or some other group doing the same for non-commercial GA down the track.

Thanks, Bas... I was just referring to the licence, rego and maintenance costs.

Kaz

[Deaf]

Quite happy with costs

RAA Pilot 185
RAA Reg 130

Insurance 2,900
Hangarage2.500
Depreciation 6,000


Annual/100 hr inspection 800 plus my time but somebody else should look at it.

RAA is more than filling it with avgas but not much

[VH-XXX]

Golly, what on earth are you flying that has depreciated at $6k per year?

4 out of the 5 aircraft that I have owned all actually appreciated over time!

[Jabawocky]

Troll comments once again from the buzzbomber.

This thread was stating the upper ranks were on a cashed up deal.

I returned that given the number of staff employed to do what they do, they are most likely under staffed and not over paid at all.

Fact is revenue v costs as shown in the report suggests that they need to either increase revenue, or decreases costs. My guess is they struggle to achieve all they do with the resources they have, the pay is not excessive as best I know, so any person with half a business brain can see they need to increase revenue.

The membership fees to RAA are too cheap as they stand today. Perhaps they need to only be raised by $50 or maybe more, but when you go broke because you pander to the likes of buzzbomber or other miserable sods who want all the work done for them now, complain when it's no slick and efficient or what's needed, but refuse to pay for it, broke is what you get.

So buzzbomber, do you really want RAA to fail or be grossly in effective? Have CASA take back the reigns? Perhaps you do, but for the record I don't think that would be ideal at all.

[baswell]

Expect a few efficiency changes at RA-Aus this year, through the miracle of automating a bunch of stuff, like payments. (Yes, the current "on-line" payment facility sends an email to staff, who then put it through their bank's payment page manually. 10,000 members and 3,500 aircraft need to be renewed like this every year. You do the math on how many per working day that is!)

[kaz3g]

[/I][/I]VH-XXX said
*
Golly, what on earth are you flying that has depreciated at $6k per year?

4 out of the 5 aircraft that I have owned all actually appreciated over time!


I'd suggest this not everyone's present experience...prices for SE basic GA aircraft appear to me to have declined significantly the last few years due to the high dollar.

Kaz

[jas24zzk]

I too believe RAA membership is rather cheap. I saw GFA mentioned in the list so I thought i'd go take a look at the fee's. Last time I paid my membership to GFA back in about '93 it was about $120. My thoughts that today it would be around 300 were vastly unproven.

link...GFA membership costs Membership Fees (http://www.gfa.org.au/imis15/GFA/Member_Services_Content/Membership_Fees.aspx)

The argument of value for money exists, and as kaz correctly points out, being a member of RAA is extremely cheap!

Consider that like GFA, RAA has to 'manage' and regulate RAA has a bigger task at hand. GFA hasn't had a large regulatory task, as its need to alter regulations to fit its operations has been largely unchanged for at least 30 years. GFA has managed to get the overseeing regulations changed to suit their operations long ago, and subsequent regulatory changes seem to have always factored those needs in during the developmental phase.

RAA has a much larger regulatory spectrum to cover. Factory built, Amateur built, kit built...everything from decently designed stuff to simple scaled up models............:eek: oversized motorised handkerchiefs to zoom machines almost capable of running down a bonza. They really do have their work cut out.

To have had a look at the document that is the basis of this threads topic, I am amazed that they manage to do as good a job as they do with the budget that they have. A prime example, is RAA's loss of Mick Poole to CASA. He didn't go there because they have better donuts. RAA's budget needs to be expanded, to pay these forward thinking people with a clue of the real world to stay, and not stolen away.

The people RAA has had behind it over the years have done an excellant job, on what should be construed as a minimal budget. We've come a long way from the days when a drifter was the ultimate trainer and a sapphire a cutting edge x-country performer. With out those people, the freedom and scope that is RAA today would not exist. People with the drive to continue that great work should be amply renumerated, and the organisations budget expanded to ensure it.

Consider this.

RAA membership. $180 ?(or thereabouts)
GFA membershio. $185 (state dependant)
CASA membership. Zero
YVAC club membership $150

Consider what you get for your dollar in the above.

As an aside, i recently enquired about joining the local 4x4 club. membership for that is $250.... i get to go on the training days free of charge, get the club newsletter, and in 3 years time i can put my vehicle on the CH register.

An interesting tidbit from the GFA website is the pie graph of thier costs....


http://www.gfa.org.au/imis15/images/Admin/gfacosts.png

[Arnold E]

RAA's budget needs to be expanded, to pay these forward thinking people with a clue of the real world to stay, and not stolen away.

Paying people more does not necessarily mean you will get a better result ( have you heard of a guy by the name of Alan Joyce?) on the other hand I have no problem with paying officers of the RAA a reasonable renumeration.

I guess it depends on individual circumstances as to whether you think things are expensive or not. I dont think RAA is particularly expensive, but, I also dont think it is particularly cheap for my circumstances. For me maintenance is not a cost issue, which it is for the vast majority of aircraft owners, and all the other things are the same (insurance etc). For me, aviation would be more expensive, all be it by a relativly small amount, if my aircraft was RAA. If my RAA pilot certificate went up by 2.5 times I would most likely dump it, as for me it would no longer represent good value.
I am not dumping on any particular section of aviation, just saying you cant make a blanket statement saying RAA is cheap......IMHO

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm...

via Jabawocky;

Troll comments once again from the buzzbomber.

This thread was stating the upper ranks were on a cashed up deal.

I returned that given the number of staff employed to do what they do, they are most likely under staffed and not over paid at all.

Fact is revenue v costs as shown in the report suggests that they need to either increase revenue, or decreases costs. My guess is they struggle to achieve all they do with the resources they have, the pay is not excessive as best I know, so any person with half a business brain can see they need to increase revenue.

The membership fees to RAA are too cheap as they stand today. Perhaps they need to only be raised by $50 or maybe more, but when you go broke because you pander to the likes of buzzbomber or other miserable sods who want all the work done for them now, complain when it's no slick and efficient or what's needed, but refuse to pay for it, broke is what you get.

So buzzbomber, do you really want RAA to fail or be grossly in effective? Have CASA take back the reigns? Perhaps you do, but for the record I don't think that would be ideal at all.


Not being all that conversent with RAA financials ah had to talk to some that do. Seems this thread is a bit of a beat-up as i suspected..:hmm:


The bleeding obvious observation were pionted out to me - How did the AUF/RAA go from nothing 30 odd years ago to what it is today... What would you hope to achieve in the future with with an extra "only" $50...:hmm:





.

[T28D]

Nothing wrong with the RAA financials or the level of fees charged.

A striking difference to AOPA ( forgive me mods ) who simply have lost the plot.

[VH-XXX]

Not being all that conversent with RAA financials ah had to talk to some that do. Seems this thread is a bit of a beat-up as i suspected..

Don't know who you could have possibly spoken to Binghi that would have suggested that a decreasing bank balance is not going backwards ????

If you were a member you would know this because every member gets the financial records with the magazine.

[fencehopper]

As a real "grass roots" ultralight flyer that rarely if ever leaves the boundaries of the 80 acre private property i fly from, it annoys the crap out of me that i have to pay a small fortune every year for things i don't need nor want. The only reason i joined the RAAus is under the threat of jail if i don't.
When it was the AUF it was not mandatory to belong.
Poor showing of grass roots types at Temora? Majority of those still flying them do not want to be part of the RAAus so why go.
BTW i do not appreciate the term "rag and tube" for early ultralights. Rag and tube are really those vintage types. Grass Roots or the correct term 'Minimum Aircraft' should be used.
FH

[LeadSled]

When it was the AUF it was not mandatory to belong.Fencehopper,

Wasn't then, ain't now ----- unless you want to go flying in an AUF/RAOz registered aircraft -------then it was mandatory and is now!!

That bit has not changed, where on earth did you ever get the idea that you could fly an AUF/RAOz aircraft (legally) without being a financial member, and having a suitable pilot certificate, ever??? ----- and the aircraft having the required volume of paperwork complete and current --- whether you own it or not!!

Unless you go back before the formation of AUF ---- and what some people were doing, all those years ago was never legally tested.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Funny thing , I recall (many, many, too many moons ago) the Tiger (as in DH 82A) I was flying was referred to as a "rag and tube" or "rag and string" machine, by all the untramegatrendoids flying their bright and shiny "spamcans", aka. Cessna C-1blah, blah, blah.

We preferred to think of our aeroplanes as real aeroplanes, and ourselves as real pilots --- DH never ran an ad campaign claiming flying their products was just like driving a motor car.

[rgmgbg01]

been a member of AUF/RAAus since 1995. Has been mandatory all that time.

Any complaints about RAAus fade away as a pleasant memory when you start dealing with CASA - Slower service (by far) and expensive (OMG! cant even begin to explain how much more expensive!!).

RAAus do a great job with very little. Good value at twice the price!

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Re. the financials, I pay my RAOz subs to be spent on running the organisation and providing member services ---- not to be accumulated in a deposit account for the purpose of earning interest.
Tootle pip!!

[metalman2]

I don't get the whole "small fortune" attitude, really, a couple of hundred bucks for a year is a small fortune? I spend that to take my missus and three teenage kids out to dinner. I've heard the whole RAA is ignoring me thing over and over ,fact is the RAA isn't ignoring you but the people trying to make a buck out of building aircraft certainly are.

[fencehopper]

Lead Sled,
How quickly some seem to forget. Anyone remember the "Parallel Paths" route that was around about 5 years ago. And before that i could just write a letter and tell the dept i will abide by the rules etc. No monopolies allowed in Australia. CASA did work out that they could 'fix' this with hidious admin fees. Rounded off a little later with questionable legislation.
Been playing this game since 1976. Seen the politics all played out over that time.

[LeadSled]

How quickly some seem to forget. Anyone remember the "Parallel Paths" route that was around about 5 years ago. And before that i could just write a letter and tell the dept i will abide by the rules etc. No monopolies allowed in Australia. CASA did work out that they could 'fix' this with hideous admin fees. Rounded off a little later with questionable legislation.
Been playing this game since 1976. Seen the politics all played out over that time.

Fencehopper,
No, I haven't forgotten, and yes, I think there should be parallel paths, and I don't like monopolies, but that has never got up, regulation wise, never got beyond a policy position. I have seen some of what I regard as serious abuse of power (not AUF/RAOz, but other self admin. bodies), because of a monopoly position.

We have what we have, and I am a supporter of RAOz, warts and all. They may not be doing a perfect job, whatever that is, something that will vary with the eye of the beholder, but I think they are doing a pretty good job under increasingly difficult circumstances.

I would like to see a major reduction if all aviation regulations that do not address a real (as opposed to imagined or perceived) and quantified risk, but in that regard, we have gone backwards 25 years in the last couple of years. Rational risk management is out the window.

Tootle pip!!

[Jabawocky]

Leadsled

What exactly ARE you talking about?

If RAAus or any organistation have funds invested for the future security of the organisation, they are being financially responsible. The good work and wise moves of any folk in the past does not qualify the cheap/free reign of the present.

If RAAus or any org act responsibly, they should be applauded, not slagged.

I have seen some of what I regard as serious abuse of power (not AUF/RAOz, but other self admin. bodies), because of a monopoly position.

The ones I can think of are groups like Warbirds? ASRA? RAAus?

How many monopoly orgs are there? And of them, they are not monopoly groups in the true sense of the word like say .....only supermarkets are Woolworths from here in. They are THE group based on the set of exemptions they administer, and if I can take a guess at it, none of these groups are blatently ripping off the members.

[LeadSled]

What exactly ARE you talking about?

If RAAus or any organistation (sic) have funds invested for the future security of the organisation, they are being financially responsible.

Jaba,
In my view (and many others that have thought about it) running a member organisation is not the same thing as running a household budget, or running a commercial business enterprise.

Members pay money for member services, the need for large "reserves", at the expense of providing member services "now" is all too often justified by resort to expressions along the line of "prudent housekeeping" , but what a member organisation is doing for its members has nothing to do with housekeeping.

Too often I have seen "conservative" board /committee members vote down expenditure, desperately needed "now", to preserve funds for some unknown future "rainy day" ---- to the very great dis-benefit of current members.

An important and unpredictable event is a Coroner's Inquest, if there is not balanced representation at an inquest, there is (as history show) a very strong possibility of a Coroner coming down with findings that are very adverse ---- simply because an alternative view was not put to the Coroner.

Unlike a household or a commercial business, a member organisation always has the ability, if things get dire, to call for a voluntary or compulsory levy on members, or, if it is more than a one off, raise the annual membership.

Provided members perceive that the end justifies the means, and that means good communications with members, (and in my experience) voluntary levies will be successful, also in my experience there will be a gratifying percentage of members who will donate more than the requested contribution ---- always a vote of confidence in the board/committee, and the continuation of the organisation.

If it's a matter of board/committee incompetence, and they have blown the budget, a new board/committee has to be the starting point.

If RA or any org act responsibly, they should be applauded, not slagged.
I most certainly was not slagging off AUF/RAOz, my public views are well enough known, I have been a strong supporter of AUF/RAAus for close to twenty years. I do NOT criticize the previous or present RAOz board for running down reserves, they are doing what they have to do in the interested, as they see it, of the organisation. ie: They are doing what they were elected to do.

They are THE group based on the set of exemptions they administer,


Not all of the self admin groups administer, or only administer, exemptions from regulations, think about it.

none of these groups are blatently (sic) ripping off the members.


Since you should mention ripping off members, one organisation that no longer has a monopoly, as it used to have, and which in my opinion did rip off its members, has been considerably improved, if not entirely divested of its "old think", by facing multiple competitors for its services.

However, in my previous post, that is not really what I was alluding to. In fact, I have seen (too often, once is too often and not AUF/RAOz) internal politics of warring factions seriously impact the commercial businesses of the "losing side" , to the commercial advantage of the "winning side" ---- do you really want the license on which you business depends being subject to the discretion of your fierce commercial and organizational politically successful competitor.

Matters such as various ratings, approvals and licenses should always be arms length and politically/commercially neutral administrative decisions ---- and it is not always so.

Tootle pip!!

[Jabawocky]

Thanks, I mostly agree, except that some reserves are better than an organisation on its kness.


I most certainly was not slagging off AUF/RAOz, my public views are well enough known,
Thats great, I never thought you did, maybe you thought that is what I meant. Certainly not my intention. :ok:

Unlike a household or a commercial business, a member organisation always has the ability, if things get dire, to call for a voluntary or compulsory levy on members, or, if it is more than a one off, raise the annual membership.
This is where I hold a slightly different view, but each to his own. :)

[VH-XXX]

Leadsled, are your contacts telling you anything about why there have been two RA-Aus board members resign in the last two days? (serious question)

[LeadSled]

Folks,
One of the things about elected boards is that, every now and again, somebody will be elected who turns out to be unhappy with the job to be done, or just can't adjust to working in a board or committee environment. A square peg in a round hole is neither the fault of the peg or the hole (or the whole)

Aviation produces many strong willed and opinionated people, often the ones, in the balance of probabilities, more likely to find it difficult to effectively fit in. Directors must exercise independence, but once a majority decision is taken, it becomes the decision of the whole board.

The two resignations from the RAOz board are nothing more, in my opinion, than manifestations of the above, and are certainly no threat to the future, financial or otherwise, of RAOz. There is a core of solid citizens, with a good cross section of experience on the RAOz board. Continuity is not in danger.

Undoubtedly, nominations for replacements, and the resultant by-elections, will be called in the near future.

Tootle pip!!

[VH-XXX]

So you obviously haven't heard anything then!

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/bsmeter.gif

[LeadSled]

VH-XXX,
Actually, I have, and my last post is my take on the current situation. It is not some financial Armageddon. Beyond that, I have nothing to add.
Tootle pip!!.

[T28D]

Usual XXX Mischief

[VH-XXX]

To be honest, I found that cool animated gif and I was desperate to use it somewhere.

BS meter not actually referring to you LeadSled, moreso the situation right now which is a little screwed up.