Re: [Aus-soaring] AEF fees, Funding, and the Demise of Gliding
Thank you Tim for setting it out so clearly, if GFA would couch its mission statement in such clear terms then the 80% could fade away knowing it was policy. I suspect my definition of 'healthy' just differs from yours. I am quite sure you are on the winning side. On 08/09/2011, at 8:43 AM, Tim Shirley wrote: We need to sell our strengths (preferably to doctors and lawyers), and stop lamenting a lost era. Perhaps in the future we'll have less members and less small clubs, but a healthier sport. We need to face facts and finally admit that we are no longer a cut price flying training outfit. Cheers Tim___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] AEF fees, Funding, and the Demise of Gliding
Tim,
As usual you hit the nail on the head J it is about the service.
Problem is that the service levels are inconsistent, some instructor, duty
pilot combinations
treat visitors like VIPs and enjoy showing off their club and our sport,
others do not. Not sure
how you improve this with volunteer workers; any ideas.
From the tug; a good Duty Pilot can make a busy day flow and everyone is
happy; a duty pilot who
is not maintaining situational awareness can make a quite day very
frustrating!
SDF
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Tim Shirley
Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011 9:13 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] AEF fees, Funding, and the Demise of Gliding
Hi all,
At GCV in Benalla we have three levels of AEF ranging in price from $135 to
$235.
The vast majority of those who take them up buy the most expensive version,
and most make a 400km round trip from Melbourne for the experience.
It's not the price, it's the service. You can book online, and through
gift websites, receive vouchers that can be redeemed at a convenient time,
and we are very flexible about weather, cancellations and re-booking.
Personally, if I feel the passenger has not had full value I will offer to
take them for a second flight at my own expense. Quality and service is
remembered long after price is forgotten.
GCV gets few new members this way, but plenty of revenue, so we may as well
charge what the market will pay. Recruits come from those with a more
sporting interest, or who are already interested in gliding rather than
other types of aviation. Judging by our last season's crop, most of them
are hanging out for the cross-country course in November and wondering how
to get into the LS4 before then.
The current problems with gliding are caused by sticking to a business model
and organisational structure that was effective in the period up to about
1980. No other business which believed that would be around for long - why
do we?
Gliding does not appear to be demising at the top end of the sport. Read
the magazine if you don't believe that - almost every page is filled with
articles about competitions and high-tech (and yes, high cost) equipment.
The featured club at Lake Keepit makes its money from people who drive 400km
from Sydney, or who attend competitions and other events there. Every year
well-heeled gliding tourists arrive at Narromine, Corowa, Benalla and
other places with containers full of top end gliders. It's not all doom and
gloom.
You can learn to fly in a Tecnam (or a Blanik), but have you ever heard of a
World Championships for them? And in which other branch of aviation can you
fly a ASG29 or JS1, or anything even vaguely approaching them?
We need to sell our strengths (preferably to doctors and lawyers), and stop
lamenting a lost era. Perhaps in the future we'll have less members and
less small clubs, but a healthier sport. We need to face facts and finally
admit that we are no longer a cut price flying training outfit.
Cheers
Tim
tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare
On 8/09/2011 12:33, gstev...@bigpond.com wrote:
Hi Macca, JR, All,
A couple of very nice postings, that gives some perspective, on this vexing
subject.
Yeah the AEF fee to GFA is large, but I have never heard of any AEF person
bucking about this. I very much suspect that much of this is because they
really don't understand just what is going on here (despite a briefing by an
experienced club member, and signing their life away)! Possibly they are
focused on the goal, which is of course as it should be - to go flying.
However if you bother to read the communications from the GFA, you will find
that this fee has been set on the basis that somebody has to pay for the
administration of our sport. In a nutshell under the current thinking, if
the AEF people don't contribute, then it is YOU who must pay more. It is all
about balancing the books.
In the very short term, Macca's response now leads me to suggest the
following: Keep the AEF fee the same, but increase the 3 day membership to 3
months. { I suspect that the current number of 3 month memberships is VERY
low.} I haven't done any research here, but I bet that my proposal will not
make the slightest bit of difference to revenue collected, and JUST MAYBE it
might get the movement an additional member or ten which will of course
actually increase revenue a bit - but revenue raising is not - just to make
it crystal clear - the prime goal of the exercise.
However let me say once again, for about the hundredth time, that the basic
problem is political, and until the GFA board acknowledges this, and then
sets about seriously - lets start with say $500,000 seriously, expended on
this over the next few years - addressing this issue, this sport will
continue to slide, possibly
Re: [Aus-soaring] AEF fees, Funding, and the Demise of Gliding
We might start by getting feedback from students about instructors. The way
it is now, once you get a ticket you are there for as long as you want. Dud
or not.
Mike
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Stuart
Kerri FERGUSON
Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011 6:25 PM
To: 'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] AEF fees, Funding, and the Demise of Gliding
Tim,
As usual you hit the nail on the head J it is about the service.
Problem is that the service levels are inconsistent, some instructor, duty
pilot combinations
treat visitors like VIPs and enjoy showing off their club and our sport,
others do not. Not sure
how you improve this with volunteer workers; any ideas.
From the tug; a good Duty Pilot can make a busy day flow and everyone is
happy; a duty pilot who
is not maintaining situational awareness can make a quite day very
frustrating!
SDF
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Tim Shirley
Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011 9:13 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] AEF fees, Funding, and the Demise of Gliding
Hi all,
At GCV in Benalla we have three levels of AEF ranging in price from $135 to
$235.
The vast majority of those who take them up buy the most expensive version,
and most make a 400km round trip from Melbourne for the experience.
It's not the price, it's the service. You can book online, and through
gift websites, receive vouchers that can be redeemed at a convenient time,
and we are very flexible about weather, cancellations and re-booking.
Personally, if I feel the passenger has not had full value I will offer to
take them for a second flight at my own expense. Quality and service is
remembered long after price is forgotten.
GCV gets few new members this way, but plenty of revenue, so we may as well
charge what the market will pay. Recruits come from those with a more
sporting interest, or who are already interested in gliding rather than
other types of aviation. Judging by our last season's crop, most of them
are hanging out for the cross-country course in November and wondering how
to get into the LS4 before then.
The current problems with gliding are caused by sticking to a business model
and organisational structure that was effective in the period up to about
1980. No other business which believed that would be around for long - why
do we?
Gliding does not appear to be demising at the top end of the sport. Read
the magazine if you don't believe that - almost every page is filled with
articles about competitions and high-tech (and yes, high cost) equipment.
The featured club at Lake Keepit makes its money from people who drive 400km
from Sydney, or who attend competitions and other events there. Every year
well-heeled gliding tourists arrive at Narromine, Corowa, Benalla and
other places with containers full of top end gliders. It's not all doom and
gloom.
You can learn to fly in a Tecnam (or a Blanik), but have you ever heard of a
World Championships for them? And in which other branch of aviation can you
fly a ASG29 or JS1, or anything even vaguely approaching them?
We need to sell our strengths (preferably to doctors and lawyers), and stop
lamenting a lost era. Perhaps in the future we'll have less members and
less small clubs, but a healthier sport. We need to face facts and finally
admit that we are no longer a cut price flying training outfit.
Cheers
Tim
tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare
On 8/09/2011 12:33, gstev...@bigpond.com wrote:
Hi Macca, JR, All,
A couple of very nice postings, that gives some perspective, on this vexing
subject.
Yeah the AEF fee to GFA is large, but I have never heard of any AEF person
bucking about this. I very much suspect that much of this is because they
really don't understand just what is going on here (despite a briefing by an
experienced club member, and signing their life away)! Possibly they are
focused on the goal, which is of course as it should be - to go flying.
However if you bother to read the communications from the GFA, you will find
that this fee has been set on the basis that somebody has to pay for the
administration of our sport. In a nutshell under the current thinking, if
the AEF people don't contribute, then it is YOU who must pay more. It is all
about balancing the books.
In the very short term, Macca's response now leads me to suggest the
following: Keep the AEF fee the same, but increase the 3 day membership to 3
months. { I suspect that the current number of 3 month memberships is VERY
low.} I haven't done any research here, but I bet that my proposal will not
make the slightest bit of difference to revenue collected, and JUST MAYBE it
might get the movement an additional member
Re: [Aus-soaring] AEF fees, Funding, and the Demise of Gliding
Hi Tim, Your post undoubtedly contains some uncomfortable truths. Under your
proposed business model however there would have been no way for me to get into
gliding and I wonder about others, including yourself. Rgds - Rolf
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 09:13:00 +1000
From: tshir...@internode.on.net
To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] AEF fees, Funding, and the Demise of Gliding
Hi all,
At GCV in Benalla we have three levels of AEF ranging in price from
$135 to $235.
The vast majority of those who take them up buy the most expensive
version, and most make a 400km round trip from Melbourne for the
experience.
It's not the price, it's the service. You can book online, and
through gift websites, receive vouchers that can be redeemed at a
convenient time, and we are very flexible about weather,
cancellations and re-booking. Personally, if I feel the passenger
has not had full value I will offer to take them for a second flight
at my own expense. Quality and service is remembered long after
price is forgotten.
GCV gets few new members this way, but plenty of revenue, so we may
as well charge what the market will pay. Recruits come from those
with a more sporting interest, or who are already interested in
gliding rather than other types of aviation. Judging by our last
season's crop, most of them are hanging out for the cross-country
course in November and wondering how to get into the LS4 before
then.
The current problems with gliding are caused by sticking to a
business model and organisational structure that was effective in
the period up to about 1980. No other business which believed that
would be around for long - why do we?
Gliding does not appear to be demising at the top end of the
sport. Read the magazine if you don't believe that - almost every
page is filled with articles about competitions and high-tech (and
yes, high cost) equipment. The featured club at Lake Keepit makes
its money from people who drive 400km from Sydney, or who attend
competitions and other events there. Every year well-heeled gliding
tourists arrive at Narromine, Corowa, Benalla and other places
with containers full of top end gliders. It's not all doom and
gloom.
You can learn to fly in a Tecnam (or a Blanik), but have you ever
heard of a World Championships for them? And in which other branch
of aviation can you fly a ASG29 or JS1, or anything even vaguely
approaching them?
We need to sell our strengths (preferably to doctors and lawyers),
and stop lamenting a lost era. Perhaps in the future we'll have
less members and less small clubs, but a healthier sport. We need
to face facts and finally admit that we are no longer a cut price
flying training outfit.
Cheers
Tim
tra
dire e
fare c'è mezzo il mare
On 8/09/2011 12:33, gstev...@bigpond.com wrote:
Hi Macca, JR, All,
A couple of very nice postings,
that gives some perspective, on this vexing subject.
Yeah the AEF fee to GFA is large,
but I have never heard of any AEF person bucking about this. I
very much suspect that much of this is because they really
don't understand just what is going on here (despite a
briefing by an experienced club member, and signing their
life away)! Possibly they are focused on the goal, which is
of course as it should be - to go flying.
However if you bother to read
the communications from the GFA, you will find that this fee
has been set on the basis that somebody has to pay for the
administration of our sport. In a nutshell under the current
thinking, if the AEF people don't contribute, then it is YOU
who must pay more. It is all about balancing the books.
In the very short term, Macca's
response now leads me to suggest the following: Keep the AEF
fee the same, but increase the 3 day membership to 3 months. {
I suspect that the current number of 3 month memberships is
VERY low.} I haven't done any research here, but I bet that my
proposal will not make the slightest bit of difference to
revenue collected, and JUST MAYBE it might get the movement an
additional member or ten which will of course actually
increase revenue a bit - but revenue raising is not - just to
make it crystal clear - the prime goal of the exercise.
However let me say once again,
for about the hundredth time, that the basic problem is
political, and until
Re: [Aus-soaring] AEF fees, Funding, and the Demise of Gliding
Hi Macca, JR, All,
A couple of very nice postings, that gives some perspective, on this vexing
subject.
Yeah the AEF fee to GFA is large, but I have never heard of any AEF person
bucking about this. I very much suspect that much of this is because they
really don't understand just what is going on here (despite a briefing by an
experienced club member, and signing their life away)! Possibly they are
focused on the goal, which is of course as it should be - to go flying.
However if you bother to read the communications from the GFA, you will find
that this fee has been set on the basis that somebody has to pay for the
administration of our sport. In a nutshell under the current thinking, if the
AEF people don't contribute, then it is YOU who must pay more. It is all about
balancing the books.
In the very short term, Macca's response now leads me to suggest the following:
Keep the AEF fee the same, but increase the 3 day membership to 3 months. { I
suspect that the current number of 3 month memberships is VERY low.} I haven't
done any research here, but I bet that my proposal will not make the slightest
bit of difference to revenue collected, and JUST MAYBE it might get the
movement an additional member or ten which will of course actually increase
revenue a bit - but revenue raising is not - just to make it crystal clear -
the prime goal of the exercise.
However let me say once again, for about the hundredth time, that the basic
problem is political, and until the GFA board acknowledges this, and then sets
about seriously - lets start with say $500,000 seriously, expended on this over
the next few years - addressing this issue, this sport will continue to slide,
possibly into oblivion: Note again JR's comment about the little clubs
disappearing. This is of course followed by the big clubs disappearing: QED!
It is very interesting that just one member of the gliding movement, (let alone
anyone on the board), has ever bothered to make comment on my suggestion about
a political solution to the problem, and that one comment was not at all
favourable. Are GFA members so lacking in foresight that they cannot see the
problem? I find this hard to believe, but then again, I guess the Dodo did not
expect to become extinct either!
Gliding administration is growing increasingly complex - read increasingly more
expensive. The Federal Government doles out a pittance to the GFA to administer
the sport. If you have missed my earlier comment on the subject, let me
reiterate that the quantum paid is nothing less than a bloody insult. The GFA
Board must surely be aware of the issues I have raised. The question that then
arises is Why does the GFA board not address these issues as their PRIME
MANDATE given that the very existence of the sport, let alone its vibrant
existence, depends on a satisfactory resolution?
Gary Stevenson
- Original Message -
From: Ian Mc Phee
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] our magazine
From my 45+years in gliding I personally believe people want to learn and
they want to learn NOW and time restraints are far more important than the
bright sleek glass ship in our president article. Take a look at RAAus 1+
members- People get to fly within 15 minutes arrival at airfield.
The $30 for AEF to GFA is sure a large - Personally I would not mind as much
if say people under 25 got it for $15. I do know GFA have a special deal with
AAFC so why not all young people. .Despite this huge initial charge and no
3months Student Membership of GFA I am very encouraged the number of young
people learning to fly in past say 18 month- there is a ray of hope out there.
And as for CASA - As old Jack Iggulden would say we know and understand
gliding CASA (or DCA as he always called them) do not
Just a thought
Ian McPhee
0428847642
On 7 September 2011 20:22, JR jma99...@bigpond.net.au wrote:
Is'nt the new look magazine unreal,but I must say I was a little disturbed
by the Presidents article on our ageing glider fleet. For starters my club had
a plan to fly our blanik for at least its 3750 hours, which would have put
somewhere near 60,000 dollars in our bank account, but thats not to be, and it
would seem that, having had that taken away from us, we are now going to be
paying more to GFA for AEF's aswell, where will it all stop. And as for nice
new plastic gliders, I have seen some fairly shabby looking examples of them
aswell, and the maintenance for me doesnt change from plastic, wood or metal, I
do the same job on them all . It does'nt matter what its made from or how old
it is, an inspection is an inspection. And on the subject of ageing aircraft, I
noticed in CASA's booklet on ageing aircraft, GFA didnt get a mention, and we
are probably leading the field in old aircraft and how to maintain them,
Re: [Aus-soaring] AEF fees, Funding, and the Demise of Gliding
I have been (fairly) quietly fuming about the AEF fees for a while now. This
year the NAGC (Reg Moore and I in reality) instructed sixty teenagers over a
dedicated five weeks. We have been doing this for eleven consecutive
years...the number has risen steadily each year. This yearI learned on a friday
that the fee was to go up to $30 on the following sunday. What is worse...it
has to be paid for in advance. Several times I have tried to get this (school)
programme to be viewed in a similar manner to the cadets...less than full price
and paid for after the event. The reply from the GFA was 'no' and the reason
given was that 'clubs have been taking the money and not passing it on'. There
was a time when I was very proud to be as active a member of the GFA as I could
be. I used to cite the organisation as an excellent example of low cost and
highly effective administration.I have been a GFA member since 1975, but still
evidently I am not trusted to be honest with the AEF fees.Have the cadet
officers/administrators got a track record like that?I now have to find $1800
in advance to run the programme. I have to ensure that each student gets their
four lessons within the miniscule timeframe. I have to do the triplicate
bullshit IN ADVANCE for every student (therefore get a signature from every
parent in advance). Just a bit of a nightmare! In short...the GFA has turned
into another self-serving beaurocratic office. And it is a hindrance-not a
help-to operations. The GFA in its present form is going to drive me
awaynever mind new members. But then the new members dont renew anyway, do
they?Costs are rising all around us. So be it. Why the restricted time frame
for these AEF's? Why not a 3 month membership?And on the bigger picture...I see
several excellent VOLUNTARY GFA office bearers doing a lot for the sport and
their colleagues. But I also see more money and less help coming from Central
Office.I belong to the BGA and GNZ as well. Dont get the same dismay when I
deal with them.
From: gstev...@bigpond.com
To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 00:33:36 +1000
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] AEF fees, Funding, and the Demise of Gliding
Hi Macca, JR, All,
A couple of very nice postings, that gives some
perspective, on this vexing subject.
Yeah the AEF fee to GFA is large, but I have never
heard of any AEF person bucking about this. I very much suspect that much of
this is because they really don't understand just what is going on here
(despite
a briefing by an experienced club member, and signing their life
away)! Possibly they are focused on the goal, which is of course as it
should be - to go flying.
However if you bother to read
the communications from the GFA, you will find that this fee has been set
on the basis that somebody has to pay for the administration of our sport. In
a nutshell under the current thinking, if the AEF
people don't contribute, then it is YOU who must pay
more. It is all about balancing the books.
In the very short term, Macca's
response now leads me to suggest the following: Keep the AEF fee the same,
but increase the 3 day membership to 3 months. { I suspect that the current
number of 3 month memberships is VERY low.} I haven't done any
research here, but I bet that my proposal will not make the
slightest bit of difference to revenue collected, and JUST MAYBE it might get
the movement an additional member or ten which will of course actually
increase revenue a bit - but revenue raising is not - just to make it crystal
clear - the prime goal of the exercise.
However let me say once again, for about the
hundredth time, that the basic problem is political, and until the GFA board
acknowledges this, and then sets about seriously - lets start with say
$500,000 seriously, expended on this over the next few
years - addressing this issue, this sport will continue to
slide, possibly into oblivion: Note again JR's comment about the little
clubs disappearing. This is of course followed by the big clubs
disappearing:
QED!
It is very interesting that just
one member of the gliding movement, (let alone anyone on the board),
has ever bothered to make comment on my suggestion about a political solution
to
the problem, and that one comment was not at all favourable. Are GFA members so
lacking in foresight that they cannot see the problem? I find this hard to
believe, but then again, I guess the Dodo did not expect to become extinct
either!
Gliding administration is growing increasingly
complex - read increasingly more expensive. The Federal Government doles out a
pittance to the GFA to administer the sport. If you have missed my
earlier comment on the subject, let me reiterate that the quantum paid
is nothing less than a bloody insult. The GFA Board must surely be aware of the
issues I have raised. The question that then arises is Why does the GFA
board not address these issues
Re: [Aus-soaring] AEF fees, Funding, and the Demise of Gliding
Hi all,
At GCV in Benalla we have three levels of AEF ranging in price from $135
to $235.
The vast majority of those who take them up buy the most expensive
version, and most make a 400km round trip from Melbourne for the experience.
It's not the price, it's the service. You can book online, and through
gift websites, receive vouchers that can be redeemed at a convenient
time, and we are very flexible about weather, cancellations and
re-booking. Personally, if I feel the passenger has not had full value
I will offer to take them for a second flight at my own expense.
Quality and service is remembered long after price is forgotten.
GCV gets few new members this way, but plenty of revenue, so we may as
well charge what the market will pay. Recruits come from those with a
more sporting interest, or who are already interested in gliding rather
than other types of aviation. Judging by our last season's crop, most
of them are hanging out for the cross-country course in November and
wondering how to get into the LS4 before then.
The current problems with gliding are caused by sticking to a business
model and organisational structure that was effective in the period up
to about 1980. No other business which believed that would be around
for long - why do we?
Gliding does not appear to be demising at the top end of the sport.
Read the magazine if you don't believe that - almost every page is
filled with articles about competitions and high-tech (and yes, high
cost) equipment. The featured club at Lake Keepit makes its money from
people who drive 400km from Sydney, or who attend competitions and other
events there. Every year well-heeled gliding tourists arrive at
Narromine, Corowa, Benalla and other places with containers full of top
end gliders. It's not all doom and gloom.
You can learn to fly in a Tecnam (or a Blanik), but have you ever heard
of a World Championships for them? And in which other branch of
aviation can you fly a ASG29 or JS1, or anything even vaguely
approaching them?
We need to sell our strengths (preferably to doctors and lawyers), and
stop lamenting a lost era. Perhaps in the future we'll have less
members and less small clubs, but a healthier sport. We need to face
facts and finally admit that we are no longer a cut price flying
training outfit.
Cheers
/Tim/
/tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare/
On 8/09/2011 12:33, gstev...@bigpond.com wrote:
Hi Macca, JR, All,
A couple of very nice postings, that gives some perspective, on this
vexing subject.
Yeah the AEF fee to GFA is large, but I have never heard of any AEF
person bucking about this. I very much suspect that much of this is
because they really don't understand just what is going on here
(despite a briefing by an experienced club member, and signing their
life away)! Possibly they are focused on the goal, which is of
course as it should be - to go flying.
However if you bother to read the communications from the GFA, you
will find that this fee has been set on the basis that somebody has
to pay for the administration of our sport. In a nutshell under the
current thinking, if the AEF people don't contribute, then it is YOU
who must pay more. It is all about balancing the books.
In the very short term, Macca's response now leads me to suggest the
following: Keep the AEF fee the same, but increase the 3 day
membership to 3 months. { I suspect that the current number of 3 month
memberships is VERY low.} I haven't done any research here, but I
bet that my proposal will not make the slightest bit of difference to
revenue collected, and JUST MAYBE it might get the movement an
additional member or ten which will of course actually increase
revenue a bit - but revenue raising is not - just to make it crystal
clear - the prime goal of the exercise.
However let me say once again, for about the hundredth time, that the
basic problem is political, and until the GFA board acknowledges this,
and then sets about seriously*- lets start with say $500,000
seriously, expended on this over the next few years - *addressing this
issue, this sport will continue to slide, possibly into oblivion: Note
again JR's comment about the little clubs disappearing. This is of
course followed by the big clubs disappearing: QED!
It is very interesting that *just one* member of the gliding movement,
(let alone anyone on the board), has ever bothered to make comment on
my suggestion about a political solution to the problem, and that one
comment was not at all favourable. Are GFA members so lacking in
foresight that they cannot see the problem? I find this hard to
believe, but then again, I guess the Dodo did not expect to become
extinct either!
Gliding administration is growing increasingly complex - read
increasingly more expensive. The Federal Government doles out a
pittance to the GFA to administer the sport. If you have missed my
earlier comment on the subject, let me
Re: [Aus-soaring] AEF fees, Funding, and the Demise of Gliding
Well said.
From: aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net
[mailto:aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] On Behalf Of Tim Shirley
Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011 9:13 AM
To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] AEF fees, Funding, and the Demise of Gliding
Hi all,
At GCV in Benalla we have three levels of AEF ranging in price from $135 to
$235.
The vast majority of those who take them up buy the most expensive version,
and most make a 400km round trip from Melbourne for the experience.
It's not the price, it's the service. You can book online, and through
gift websites, receive vouchers that can be redeemed at a convenient time,
and we are very flexible about weather, cancellations and re-booking.
Personally, if I feel the passenger has not had full value I will offer to
take them for a second flight at my own expense. Quality and service is
remembered long after price is forgotten.
GCV gets few new members this way, but plenty of revenue, so we may as well
charge what the market will pay. Recruits come from those with a more
sporting interest, or who are already interested in gliding rather than
other types of aviation. Judging by our last season's crop, most of them
are hanging out for the cross-country course in November and wondering how
to get into the LS4 before then.
The current problems with gliding are caused by sticking to a business model
and organisational structure that was effective in the period up to about
1980. No other business which believed that would be around for long - why
do we?
Gliding does not appear to be demising at the top end of the sport. Read
the magazine if you don't believe that - almost every page is filled with
articles about competitions and high-tech (and yes, high cost) equipment.
The featured club at Lake Keepit makes its money from people who drive 400km
from Sydney, or who attend competitions and other events there. Every year
well-heeled gliding tourists arrive at Narromine, Corowa, Benalla and
other places with containers full of top end gliders. It's not all doom and
gloom.
You can learn to fly in a Tecnam (or a Blanik), but have you ever heard of a
World Championships for them? And in which other branch of aviation can you
fly a ASG29 or JS1, or anything even vaguely approaching them?
We need to sell our strengths (preferably to doctors and lawyers), and stop
lamenting a lost era. Perhaps in the future we'll have less members and
less small clubs, but a healthier sport. We need to face facts and finally
admit that we are no longer a cut price flying training outfit.
Cheers
Tim
tra dire e fare c'è mezzo il mare
On 8/09/2011 12:33, gstev...@bigpond.com wrote:
Hi Macca, JR, All,
A couple of very nice postings, that gives some perspective, on this vexing
subject.
Yeah the AEF fee to GFA is large, but I have never heard of any AEF person
bucking about this. I very much suspect that much of this is because they
really don't understand just what is going on here (despite a briefing by an
experienced club member, and signing their life away)! Possibly they are
focused on the goal, which is of course as it should be - to go flying.
However if you bother to read the communications from the GFA, you will find
that this fee has been set on the basis that somebody has to pay for the
administration of our sport. In a nutshell under the current thinking, if
the AEF people don't contribute, then it is YOU who must pay more. It is all
about balancing the books.
In the very short term, Macca's response now leads me to suggest the
following: Keep the AEF fee the same, but increase the 3 day membership to 3
months. { I suspect that the current number of 3 month memberships is VERY
low.} I haven't done any research here, but I bet that my proposal will not
make the slightest bit of difference to revenue collected, and JUST MAYBE it
might get the movement an additional member or ten which will of course
actually increase revenue a bit - but revenue raising is not - just to make
it crystal clear - the prime goal of the exercise.
However let me say once again, for about the hundredth time, that the basic
problem is political, and until the GFA board acknowledges this, and then
sets about seriously - lets start with say $500,000 seriously, expended on
this over the next few years - addressing this issue, this sport will
continue to slide, possibly into oblivion: Note again JR's comment about the
little clubs disappearing. This is of course followed by the big clubs
disappearing: QED!
It is very interesting that just one member of the gliding movement, (let
alone anyone on the board), has ever bothered to make comment on my
suggestion about a political solution to the problem, and that one comment
was not at all favourable. Are GFA members so lacking in foresight that they
cannot see the problem? I find this hard to believe, but then again, I guess
the Dodo did not expect
