EAA cuts

[Bill Berson]

The membership has been reported to have grown from 165,000 to 170,000. If that is true, why the cuts?

Maybe the answer is so EAA can save up money to buy the new EAA corporate jet. (with discounts for marketing the jet in SPORT AVIATION, of course). The jet could be used for air to air photos and transportation to EAA events.
I am not joking here, this seems the only logical next step to becoming another AOPA.

[steveinindy]

EAA has their chapters all of which could be combined for better coverage of the US.

Personally, I'd vote for trying to consolidate EAA chapters in a given area before we try to combine EAA chapter and AOPA airport rep operations. The number of chapters in some areas (such as around Indianapolis; there are five chapters and a warbirds chapter within 25 miles of my house) are a bit ridiculous and often a lot of it boils down to personal disagreements between "leaderships" and/or basically the desire to be an EAA-bannered type club.

The biggest problem the EAA faces isn't the desire to be more inclusive. It's the divisive nature of some factions of our membership who seek to drive wedges between the various aspects of the hobby of aviation that will be the downfall of the Association if anything ever will be. These folks will parrot mindlessly and incessantly about how we need to support the EAA's mission of encouraging aviation in all its forms but will try to crucify anyone who isn't into their type of plane. To those folks who can't see past their own wants and desires to look at the bigger picture, I say good riddance. I hate to see the knowledge and experience of those folks leave the organization but we do not need the negative Chicken Little behavior every time something comes out that they don't like. Go form your own organization and continue to support GA in your own way. We need the numbers but we don't need the pessimism.

[Bob Meder]

The biggest problem the EAA faces isn't the desire to be more inclusive. It's the divisive nature of some factions of our membership who seek to drive wedges between the various aspects of the hobby of aviation that will be the downfall of the Association if anything ever will be. These folks will parrot mindlessly and incessantly about how we need to support the EAA's mission of encouraging aviation in all its forms but will try to crucify anyone who isn't into their type of plane. To those folks who can't see past their own wants and desires to look at the bigger picture, I say good riddance. I hate to see the knowledge and experience of those folks leave the organization but we do not need the negative Chicken Little behavior every time something comes out that they don't like. Go form your own organization and continue to support GA in your own way. We need the numbers but we don't need the pessimism.

Absolutely on target, Steve. This is something I've said directly to Hightower.

And, from a personal standpoint, as someone that will never build an airplane but is a member of EAA, I'm frankly tired of feeling excluded by some members because I fly production aircraft. There's room for everyone; let us remember what Lincoln said about a house divided.

[Dana]

A few years back a bunch of us looked into forming an EAA ultralight chapter. We had an active group, the people, a place to meet, we were already putting on twice a year fly-ins. Contacted EAA, got the chapter package, looked it over... and really couldn't see anything EAA would do for a chapter that we weren't already doing ourselves (or didn't need).

Re EAA itself, like any organization it's subject to the Iron Law of Bureaucracy (from science fiction author Jerry Pournelle):

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

[Treetop_Flyer]

A few years back a bunch of us looked into forming an EAA ultralight chapter. We had an active group, the people, a place to meet, we were already putting on twice a year fly-ins. Contacted EAA, got the chapter package, looked it over... and really couldn't see anything EAA would do for a chapter that we weren't already doing ourselves (or didn't need).

So you had your own insurance to cover your fly-ins? If I may ask, what did that run you for the two events each year? I'd be interested to see how it compares to what the cost to be a chapter for EAA is.

[steveinindy]

There's room for everyone; let us remember what Lincoln said about a house divided.

Given the holiday, I'll give you one better: "We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools."

[scottf]

Dana... I think after reading a few of these posts that you have absolute proof of the Iron Law.

A few years back a bunch of us looked into forming an EAA ultralight chapter. We had an active group, the people, a place to meet, we were already putting on twice a year fly-ins. Contacted EAA, got the chapter package, looked it over... and really couldn't see anything EAA would do for a chapter that we weren't already doing ourselves (or didn't need).

Re EAA itself, like any organization it's subject to the Iron Law of Bureaucracy (from science fiction author Jerry Pournelle):

[flyunleaded]

The membership has been reported to have grown from 165,000 to 170,000. If that is true, why the cuts?

> ...

EAA is not the most financially transparent organization. I'm not sure that membership is anywhere near 170000. If you look at the last financial report on the web 2010 here on Page 25, and you take the "Membership dues and subscriptions" and divide by $40, the number is around 143000 members.

The key is to then look at the "Publishing and member services" numbers you see that EAA is bleeding money on membership.

It is clear that EAA makes their money on AirVenture and related items, like "Commissions and royalties" which is about branding and "Donations".

I believe that EAA should stop fooling their membership and just admit it, they are AirVenture, Inc. They are certainly not a homebuilder movement anymore.

[Kyle Boatright]

EAA is not the most financially transparent organization.

<<<snip>>>

I believe that EAA should stop fooling their membership and just admit it, they are AirVenture, Inc. They are certainly not a homebuilder movement anymore.

EAA has a long history of governance issues, which include the stacked process to be elected to the board of directors and a lack of financial transparency. Many members (including me) have ignored the issues, simply because they "bought" the organization's direction and apparent mission. Now that there has been a directional change, I think you'll see a call for better governance.

Also, whether EAA is indeed "Airventure, Inc" or not, leadership needs to clearly and concisely communicate the new direction and the reasons behind the change. Everyone who is paying attention can see that things have changed substantially. It is up to the leadership of the organization to effectively communicate the when, where, why, and how of the changes. The press releases so far have been a massive fail. EAA leadership has to realize that they can't send out sanitized corporate-speak releases to an enthusiast organization. People are passionate about the EAA and the smart ones see that EAA's direction has changed in a massive way, yet the leadership is largely saying "Nothing to see here, just a little housekeeping, move along... Nothing to see..."

It doesn't pass the sniff test. If members get the sense that the leadership isn't leveling with them, that'll be bad for the bottom line.


And don't get me wrong. I love the EAA and what it has and will continue to do for the enthusiast/pilot. However, I have serious concerns about the association's new direction.

[Bill]

EAA is not the most financially transparent organization. I'm not sure that membership is anywhere near 170000. If you look at the last financial report on the web 2010 here on Page 25, and you take the "Membership dues and subscriptions" and divide by $40, the number is around 143000 members.

You can't do that. There are three classes of membership; individual @ $40, family @ $50, and life @ $975 (which I assume is prepaid and thus, for the most part, not included in the 2010 membership dues and subscriptions data). Since we have no way of knowing the proportion of each of the three cohorts in the EAA membership, it is impossible to use the presented data to estimate the total EAA membership.

What I did find interesting amongst the modest amount of data presented, is that on page 6 there is a statement that EAA membership grew by 7.1 percent in fiscal 2010, while at the same time, on page 10, membership dues and subscriptions income declined by about 0.3 percent during the same period.