Who’s Minding the GA Store?

The need for the CAA to consult, and to be seen to be consulting, with industry has imposed heavy demands on the various industry associations. This has occurred at a time when economic conditions have placed pressure on their membership numbers, and hence revenues, resulting in the necessary husbanding of resources to best meet those issues considered most important. This inability to satisfy all the demands, all the time, inevitably leaves these associations open to accusations of failing to adequately represent their members’ interests. Such arguments were very evident in the recent AOPA election campaign and it is yet to be seen how the new management of Dick Smith and Boyd Munro will fare when it presumably has to revert to operating within its own financial resources and a sustainable budget.

General Aviation, which is all aviation except the scheduled service operators and the military, comprises some 90% of the aviation industry and is essentially represented by three principal organisations – The Royal Federation of Aero Clubs, the General Aviation Association and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Between them, these associations service the three different segments of the GA community – AOPA the individual pilot needs, the RFACA the aero clubs and the GAA the commercial GA organisations.

Special interest groups such as gliders, ultralights, hang gliders, parachutists etc are each controlled and well represented by their own national associations. Collectively they are represented by the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation however, in the more general sense, it is the other three – the RFACA, GAA and AOPA – who represent General Aviation across the broad spectrum of regulated aircraft operations. But how representative, and how effective, are they?

Canberra based AOPA is an association of individuals rather than organisations and has some 10,000 individual aircraft owner and pilot members. It is arguably the largest and most financially solvent of the three with reported net assets of $500,000 and an annual budget of $800,000.

The RFACA, also based in Canberra, represents organisations rather than individuals. Historically it was formed to represent only Aero Clubs however, in more recent times, it has extended its membership to include some commercial flying training organisations. The RFACA is an old and prestigious organisation which has worked hard to represent its members in an increasingly difficult financial environment. One of the main obstacles to expanding its membership numbers is that the results of its efforts are enjoyed by all Aero Clubs and not just its members.

The GAA, now headquartered in Adelaide, represents the commercial general aviation organisations (such as flying training, charter, freight operators etc) and has similar difficulties in providing exclusive benefits to its members.

It is a sad reflection on general aviation that its interests are protected by those few individuals and organisations who financially support these associations with their membership. It is often not realised that it is the RFACA and the GAA who represent the interests of all GA operators in the industrial arena, particularly when arguing pilot’s wages and conditions in the Pilot’s (GA) Award, yet they struggle to survive with the support of very few of the many beneficiaries.

AOPA is now calling for donations from its members to help fight the good fight. But money is only one part of the problem. To be effective, associations such as AOPA must be representative of their segment of the industry and that means having a significantly large membership base. What constitutes a significant number of members is certainly arguable. For example AOPA, with its 10,000 members, represents approximately 20% of the 50,000 or so licensed pilots in Australia or perhaps more realistically, 40% of the estimated 25,000 practising pilots. But what is a reasonable target? 100% membership is obviously an impractical ideal with even 40% being argued in many quarters as a practical and cost effective limit beyond which it can cost more to recruit members than can be reasonably recovered.

So, how can these Associations increase their membership, their financial viability and hence their effectiveness? One obvious answer is to provide the service which the individual sees as good value for money. However, the difficulty usually lies in convincing the individual of the value – particularly when money is scarce. Associations can spend all day promoting their efforts to defend their members and the industry’s interests against rapacious government and regulatory authorities but, at the end of the day, it is what the individuals get for the dollar they have paid that is most important to them. Motoring organisations, such as the NRMA, RACV etc, are excellent examples of large membership organisations which derive significant lobbying power from their membership base. But for many it is the roadside and other direct services which attracted their membership – any lobbying on their behalf is a fringe benefit and usually shared by the motoring public at large. These Associations provide both a service and benefit to their members but it is the unique service to their members that is the initial, and most important attraction.

Given AOPA is arguably the largest and most effective of the General Aviation representative organisations, then therecent changes in its management are significant for both its members and the general aviation community at large. AOPA’s strength lies in its membership base and if that membership is to grow then readily recognisable services and benefits must be provided. All the lobbying in the world cannot replace essential membership services.

Despite the extensive, and expensive, election campaign mounted by Boyd Munro more than half the membership still failed to vote. Presumably those now voting members were more interested in the membership services, such as the monthly magazine, rather than the politics.

Only time will tell whether the new team in AOPA has got it right or not. Hopefully they have, and General Aviation will be the better for it; because if they are wrong, and AOPA’s effectiveness declines, then the question must arise “Who is minding the GA store?” and probably more importantly, “Where does GA go from here?”