I was unaware of the brewing dispute concerning expenditures, salaries, and service to higher-end operators until reading this group of comments. It seems to me that AOPA has a very broad audience with different, and sometimes conflicting, objectives amongst the various member subgroups. That is not, however, to say that the organization favors one such subgroup over another. The recurrent complaints regarding service to “corporations” and “fat cats” are genuinely disturbing, echoing as they do the envy and acrimony promoted by the current occupant of our White House.

For my part (and I am one of the “little guys” so prized by the noisier complainants), I value AOPA’s work and have benefitted extensively from it, as have all aviators. I recognize that there are other members who are differently positioned and who hold interests and objectives different from my own, but, for the most part, the bottom-line mission for all of us is the same. The argument that AOPA somehow serves or favors one sub-group of its memerbship over another is not supported in my experience, and seems to me ridiculous.

The gentleman who reminded us from “Top Gun” that funding is what makes aircraft fly hit the issue on the nose. We may not like it, but in today’s Washington-ruled environment, we have to play the game to maintain our perks. And that game costs money – lots of it. The fact that we (GA) are still here (unlike virtually any other country) is in large measure attributable to the aggressive actions, political and, yes, financial, of our organization and its leadership. So instead of quibbling about the nickles which constitute the entire participation of 98% of our esteemed “core” members, we should do more to help – making voluntary donations, becoming lifetime members, and yes, purchasing products from those annoying, unrelenting solications. As a very wise man once commanded, ask not what your assocation can do for you; ask what you can do for your association.

Would you consider publishing your daily agenda so that AOPA members know who you meet with, where, when, and how you travel to meetings?

The company you keep needs some keen scrutiny. There is an imbalance in the variety of people with whom you engage in deep, thoughtful discussion about the future of general aviation.

Have you cut the grass at a small airport lately, or helped change a tire on a Cessna 150? Such experiences provide balance, broaden and deepen perspective, help prove you have (or want to have) some skin in the game, help show that you don’t fill your days with meetings in which you calibrate every sentence to please an affluent audience, and during which you demonstrate fluency in corporate-speak.

In your open letter you have unknowingly revealed that the efforts AOPA has made to alter/shift/create a revenue stream to help perpetuate the organization have also had unintended and undesirable consequences. Who exactly you spend your time talking to is one such consequence. Where is another. How you get there is another.

I suggest that as much as you want to believe that you and other AOPA personnel have applied business and financial experience and acumen to the funding problem, allegedly for the good of the organization, you have also, collectively, invited in an attendant but troubling mentality that has alienated many AOPA members and former members.

It may have seemed a good idea to perpetuate the organization as a quasi-business entity (while superficially continuing to insist it is a broad-based GA advocacy group), and to populate AOPA management with people who by education, training or inclination borne of inexperience tend to reinforce this bias that AOPA is, or should evolve into, a quasi-business entity, but this has had the damaging consequence of making preservation of the “business” more important than listening to, and acting on, the concerns of members, all members, I repeat, all members.

Many AOPA members and former members express this sentiment, but, in a way all too familiar to individuals who have to exert themselves mightily to get the attention of a corporation, AOPA management is not sufficiently accountable, accessible, or transparent. AOPA has become too corporate. Whatever advantages that creates for AOPA as a business entity, it destroys the collective benefits which made the organization attractive to those who love to fly, but who don’t find and maintain (or lose) a large part of their identity in the corporate mindset.

Forming a collective to advance and represent your interests within a larger community gives voice to the concerns of the collective members. Their concerns are the focus, agenda and purpose for the collective. But you have topped this collective (read: not a business), AOPA, with a corporate-style management, and now impose upon the organization a corporate agenda, focus and purpose at odds with the needs of the members.

The focus, agenda and purpose for which the organization was founded have been hijacked, whatever protestations you make to the contrary. This entity AOPA has become may survive as a quasi-business, but current AOPA policy reflects the work (prejudices) of a handful of like-minded individuals, and exposes their glaring short-sightedness, limited life experiences, lopsided education and political affiliation.
In evidence, I cite the misinformation campaign AOPA has mounted to prevent an honest discussion of User Fees. The shameful way in which AOPA has cherry-picked data, selectively reported it to create lies of omission, conflated and collapsed cause and effect relationships, allowed and encouraged mis-perceptions to flourish, descends into partisan politicking of the lowest kind.

AOPA is no longer a people-first, members-first organization. What it more closely resembles is a corporation, managed now by those who benefited from the supply-side economy built in the last several decades, and whose members concern themselves primarily with preserving the economic status quo. Of course, they number among the beneficiaries of the status quo.

If AOPA really did listen to all of its members, they’d be supporting the User Fee proposal, and citing the FAA’s statement that, “The fact that fewer than 500 users would account for 95 percent of the billable flights presents opportunities for significant efficiencies in the billing and collection process.”

No massive new bureaucracy needed here, but AOPA members have to look beyond any “source” of information proffered by AOPA management to get an accurate picture of how User Fees will affect, and not affect, corporate and private aviation.

It’s clear that AOPA goes to bat for the 500, at the expense of thousands of other members.

I am in my third decade of membership in AOPA. On every occasion when I have contacted them regarding something about flying I have received a courteous and helpful response. I have never been told anything by them in those responses that was later proven to be incorrect. They have been there when I needed them.

Any organization has to evolve with the times. Communication is always difficult. Frequently, members only want to communicate when they have a concern, thus they ignore the information that routinely comes from the organization. None of us is perfect and AOPA has opportunities to improve on individualizing the channels used to communicate with us as members. Plus, I agree that there are too many wasted membership solicitations which waste precious resources.

We are the reason the organization exists and AOPA should not forget that, but let us not forget that it takes a lot more than a $45 annual membership fee to accomplish all that we want done at the federal and state levels. There is no free lunch: we either accept less than what is necessary to maintain our freedom to fly; pay more personally; or allow the organization to find other revenue opportunities.

It’s normal–organizations grow and are successful–until they become so large that they are no longer responsive (EAA has been accused of this)–then a smaller, more nimble, more focused organization better serves the needs of the consumer. The Federal government is the ultimate example.

I’ve been a member of AOPA for 27 years. Things I like: Their magazine has surpassed Flying magazine as the best all-around publication. The quality, content, and advertisements are the best. As an FBO, I like the ability to rapidly get responses to questions when calling AOPA headquarters–they are the best of the alphabet aviation organizations. When the FAA overstepped their bounds locally, AOPA was right there with legal help and advocacy. They ARE effective in beating back rogue regulators.

Things I don’t like: A constant barrage of junk mail, e-mail, and advertisements. I would rather they just continue doing their job as aviation advocates. Item 2–I’d like them to do more issues in changing our industry–like the AOPA-EAA partnership on the medical issue. The entire aviation regulatory system is a relic, and needs review. That should keep them busy for the next 20 years!

That being said, EAA and AOPA are the best advocates our industry has–I certainly wouldn’t disparage them.

I would hope that Mr. Fuller and the execs at AOPA not only read but take to heart what their membership is telling them in these responses to Mr. Fuller’s open letter. It seems that AOPA has become bloated and lost focus on the small plane GA pilot. I would like to think that’s where the majority of AOPA’s membership is and also where AOPA’s focus should be shifted to, maybe I’m wrong on that though. While I personally find Mr. Goyer of Flying magazine a bit pretentious there is a significant amount of additional feedback from current and former AOPA members on this topic here: http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/aopa-comes-under-gun

Hopefully AOPA leadership will not simply dismiss this feedback as loud noise from a vocal minority and will shift their focus from running with and writing for the “jet set” to meeting the needs and interests of GA pilots who don’t fly and can’t afford $400,000 Cessna 172′s and multimillion dollar turbines and jets. There are other organizations to cater to that group.

Frank Shaw