Will RAA flying remain affordable

[Guest becky1]

Hi everyone,

 

Having just read the new fee increases and as the RAA Treasurer has mentioned in his justification of the new fees,we have not had a increase for five years and it has to be done to finance items such as insurances planned expansion etc,I am sure most of us can understand these things,however will it get to a stage where aspiring recreation pilots cannot afford to start learning at all.

 

Sure it is fine for our organization to say as well as landlords,governments, water and electricity suppliers or whoever that they have not increased fees for such and such a period,but when all these increases are added together it cannot be expected that the average salary earner can continue to find the money he needs to live, so what will he or she need to cutout "his or her flying". This of course will be to the detriment of the RAA,its flying schools, CFI's, instructors,level 2 maintainers etc.and to every one that flies or owns their own RAA registered aircraft.

 

As an organization we should be doing our best to encourage new people to start flying,young people who have a dream of learning to fly and are probably working at MacDonalds or similiar to finance their way through, the $25 extra on membership isn't going to help with that endeavor.

 

We need to stay affordable,maybe cutting back in some areas should be looked at,not spending so much time on trying to gain new freedoms such as controlled airspace endorsements, higher MTOW's etc.plus of course if people need to learn how to fly, can the flying schools remain viable? with extra aircraft registration fees and even CFI's having to pay higher fees than any other member and who are not particulary well paid in the first place,it may be the start of flying schools having to close, "then what?" no where to learn and if you can find somewhere it will be so expensive you may as well go with GA.

 

This is not mean't to be a whinge about the increased fees,but merely a concern that not everbody has the money to continue flying at any cost.

 

Why not lesser fees to encourage more members and more flying which could lead to expansion if thats the RAA's goal.

 

Regards

 

Jennifer

 

 

[turboplanner]

It would also be fair to say that with a massive windfall of expanding membership, RAA hasn't made much of an effort to manage savings brought about by economies of scale.

 

You're right becky, first to go will be the hobbies.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

As with any hobby, it will be affordable for some and not so for others. I am sometimes bemused by complaints about minor increases in some fee or other by people who smoke a carton of cigarettes every week and somehow feel they are more important than food.

 

It is true that nobody likes increased bills, but increases are a fact of life and if you look at quite a few things, they actually cost less as a percentage of wages today than 20 years ago. Increases in wages have been greater than the increase in some things. Cars and clothing come to mind. Houses used to be in that basket, but recent years increases seem to be making first homes more unaffordable than they used to be.

 

I think the increases in fuel costs have dwarfed any other fees in terms of costs. Fuel used to be a minor expense. Today it is one of the major expenses of every family. Just wait for the new Carbon Tax to bite and the effect of that too will dwarf the RAA increases.

 

Another fuel increase that is headed down the pipeline is the move by several state governments to mandate the use of Ethanol in ULP, meaning that many aircraft that run on ULP today will be forced to PULP.

 

We keep getting told by governments to use less water and less electricity, and yet when we do that, the bills for those utilities get bigger not smaller!

 

It won't be the minor RAA increases that make flying unaffordable, but all the other costs of living increasing, seemingly exponentially.

 

My concerns aren't focussed on whether it will cost me a couple of bottles of wine a year more in RAA fees, but that the money is used wisely and efficiently to benefit members. Also that the organisation has a financial plan and remains solvent. To that end, Steve Runciman's note is quite welcome.

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

Are the increasing fees a reflection of our demand for (and the supply of) more expensive composite aircraft - more expensive registration, maintenance, and insurance? I can't quite fathom what an increase in public liability from $5 to 10 million will do - our aircraft and pilots are safe, and there should be less risk and less need for increased liability. I don't know how it works. Some members are lamenting the gradual loss of real ultralight aircraft - if more people looked to learn in and buy low powered aircraft, how would that change the financial situation of RAA? More questions than answers.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Small price rises aren't really that big a problem. A bigger problem I can see is when large numbers of semi-retired exGA pilots retire from RAA flying permanently, then you will see the same overheads needing to be paid by fewer and fewer members.

 

 

[winsor68]

Small price rises aren't really that big a problem. A bigger problem I can see is when large numbers of semi-retired exGA pilots retire from RAA flying permanently, then you will see the same overheads needing to be paid by fewer and fewer members.

This is a BIG problem not just for Recreational flying but for the whole country and its economy... the old populate or perish argument seems to be the only workable answer that anyone has been able to come up with. I commented on another post that apparently one of the "Old Boys" will retire every 6 minutes from this year onwards... and its these same people who have all the money so I guess nothing has changed since the who sang their "young man ain't got nothing in the world these days... and its the old man whose got allllll the money" line.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Before everyone tears up and starts singing Auld Lang Syne, has the RAA provided any demographics which support this aging GA theory?

 

 

[Admin]

I can't quite fathom what an increase in public liability from $5 to 10 million will do

More and more airfields are now requiring a Public Liability of $10m...cases are starting to appear where RAA Pilots are not allowed to use some airfields unless they have coverage of $10m

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Before everyone tears up and starts singing Auld Lang Syne, has the RAA provided any demographics which support this aging GA theory?

The RAA has everyone's date of birth for the licence application. Just judging by the people I meet at my local strip, I would say that your average RAA pilot is closer to 60 than 40.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Just got around to reading Feb issue of 'the mag' and reading Eugene's column about how GA owners will soon have another outlay with the upcoming introduction of compulsory third party. Often thought how they got around that over the last decade or so. So more expense for the aviator. Another interesting comment by Eugene in the last paragraph about 95:10 pilots only needing a 'very basic' certificate. If one wishes to build on it then they can. Seems to come across in the future tense. But could this be an indication by the RAAus that Recreational Flying is pretty close to GA in the terms of overall cost and regulation and getting closer to the same privileges. Easing up on the lower end would be a great way to entice those who just can't afford it the way things are. make me a bit happier too.

 

ozzie

 

 

[Guest basscheffers]

But could this be an indication by the RAAus that Recreational Flying is pretty close to GA in the terms of overall cost and regulation and getting closer to the same privileges.

The numbers for high performance RA-Aus flying being significantly cheaper than GA simply don't add up - if you shop around GA that is anyway.

Forget hiring, that's always expensive in GA, but if you join a syndicate, GA need not be very expensive. Or even buying a $35K old C152 instead of a $100K plastic fantastic is going to leave you $65K in change to spend on the higher maintenance bills. A smart investor could probably pay the extras from the gains on that $65K sitting in the bank account and/or not paying a mortgage over!

 

You can probably get into the air for the same kind of money. But if you want to fly a nice, new, comfortable aircraft, then of course RA is significantly cheaper than GA.

 

 

[kaz3g]

I have third party insurance (person and property) with a $2mil limit as an integral part of my VH aircraft's insurance policy (insured for two seats) and that seems to be the norm at present. If I do more than $2m damage in a single incident I'll most likely be dead and no longer able to be sued, anyway.

 

The insurance for VH registered machines runs with the aircraft so the only reason I can see TPLL insurance would not be available would be if an aircraft itself was uninsured. I suppose some people are prepared to take the risk but I don't know anyone who does.

 

That said, I like the RAAus system where TPLL is carried by the pilot rather than the aircraft he is flying at the particular time but can't see how it can be reasonably made mandatory and applied to CASA crew licences which do not have the same sort of regular renewal process and associated cost. Perhaps they plan to screw us on this next?

 

kaz

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

... If I do more than $2m damage in a single incident I'll most likely be dead and no longer able to be sued, anyway....

Perhaps you have heard of "STD" (Sexually Transmitted Debt). If you die and are liable, your estate is liable. If the aircraft was owned jointly and the insurance was on the aircraft, then I could see a situation where a partner would also be jointly liable.

We'd need a legal opinion to be sure.

 

 

[ben87r]

The numbers for high performance RA-Aus flying being significantly cheaper than GA simply don't add up - if you shop around GA that is anyway.

They way i look at it i could never afford a 3 year old c172 but can afford a j170/230 ect

 

 

[Bandit12]

It's seems that as RAA moves to more high performance aircraft, so to is the cost increasing. I've regularly seen ultralights such as Javelins and other low performance craft on Ebay and for sale for less than $10K. Reading around on the RAA (AUF!) website suggests that there has been a large change in the number and types of aircraft on the register - more people want 100 knot cruise with two seats than a 55 knot cruise single seat out in the breeze. So I guess it can be a lot more affordable if people are prepared to fly low and slow....

 

 

[Admin]

It's seems that as RAA moves to more high performance aircraft, so to is the cost increasing - more people want 100 knot cruise with two seats than a 55 knot cruise single seat out in the breeze. So I guess it can be a lot more affordable if people are prepared to fly low and slow....

I wonder whether there is any correlation with this and airfield closures...low and slow is great for flying around the vicinity of the airfield but when you have to drive for an hour to get there and another hour to get home puts a damper on things whereas driving for an hour and then going on a cruise to say another airfield, making a day of it, can be more pleasurable...just thinking out loud

 

 

[fly_tornado]

What you have described is common with about any power vehicle, boat, bike, quad etc. Its called the "FA factor" that you go through prior to the event. When I did track days it was about 3 hours prior and 2 hours post. What makes flying a lot more accessible is that you can do it on any weekend the weather is good, getting access to a racetrack is a lot more restricted.

 

The other issue to consider is a lot of the time, its a case of buying what you can. Most of the ultralight builders have gone bust.

 

 

[old man emu]

Jeezuz!

 

Some people really amaze me with their penny wise, pound foolish thinking!

 

$185 per year for membership to an organisation that:

 

1. Provides a liasion service with the Government body that regulates the activity that the organisation is involved in.

 

2. Provides technical and safety advice for all aspects of the activity and the equipment used in the activity.

 

3. Provides a database showing ownership of the major piece of equipment used in the activity.

 

4. Provides members with adequate insurance to cover misadventures which might arise during the conduct of the activity,

 

5. Provides a social network for those involved in the activity.

 

6. Provides a regular publication to its members.

 

7. Provides the organisation for a major get-together of members (Natfly), and supports other local get-togethers.

 

Does your local golf club charge only $185 for membership? Doubt it. What about your Professional organisation or Trade Union? Doubt it.

 

I pay more than that for membership to a Radio Controlled Airplane club.

 

RAA fees are quite reasonable for what they provide.

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[facthunter]

The RAAus got a 'burst' of new members from the delay relating to having the PPL student licence issued. Most of those members have or will go to GA to continue their training so we can not be sure of what level of membership we will settle on. Floods and cyclones will have their effect too. It could easily end up around the high 7 thousand. The RAAus has to remain solvent. That is obvious. CASA are requiring more and more of the organisation and if you overwork staff they don't stay there.

 

The biggest cost, as I see it, is the aircraft for the purchaser. At the high end you are laying out quite a lot of money. Of course a GA plane would be 3 times the cost (If new). Second-hand they can be a comparable price, but they are much more costly to maintain and run.

 

You have to be a bit REAL about this. The organisation has to cover a continent the size of the USA. You have to be involved with accident/incident investigation and the supervision of FTF's and maintenance of standards. There should be MORE than the current 2 board meetings per annum, ( the minimum allowed).

 

Carrying on the "real" theme, TWO hours of flying per week took ALL of my salary, when I started. Work out how many hours you can get for an average weeks salary NOW. ( about 3 times as much).. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

OK, with the exception of items 5,6,7 I did all that for 1500 people on a voluntary basis for what in today's value would be about 80 cents per year - that's where I'm coming from.

 

Once you pay people they manage to get PA's or secretaries, and once you get premises you get receptionists, then you get demarkation requiring someone to do subscriptions full time, and so it expands exponentially.

 

With the golf club example, members are making use of a facility which has a lot of consumables and maintenance - if a flying club just charged memberships and no hourly rates, the subscriptions would be thousands a year too.

 

I'm also in an RC club, and also pay well above RAA subscription rates, but that includes leasing the land, ground maintenance etc. and a hefty public liability insurance premium.

 

 

[Guest becky1]

It really isn't a matter if the RAA fees are good value for money or not,its whether people can afford to pay the asking amount for membership,on top of the other expenses of learning to fly,aircraft hire, etc.

 

Take for example that you are not a huge salary earner and you are sitting around the kitchen table with your partner paying bills,electricity,$500 water $300 school fees or whatever,when your partner says what is this account for RAA $185 ?, perhaps then adding couldn't you do without flying for a while or worse we cannot afford for you to continue at all.

 

With respect to Old Man Emu and Destiny flyer my point in starting this thread is not about penny pinching,its about having as many people as possible being able to fly,which I thought that was what the RAA was all about.I feel sure their are aspiring pilots all current certificate holders out there that can just barely afford now to fly with their current income and comittments who may now have to give it up or not start at all. This of course is not just to do with RAA fees increasing,but just adding to the fact that aviation may in any form be possibly to expensive for some to even contemplate.

 

All I would hope the executive of the RAA think very carefully if they should go in a certain direction which costs more to implement but rather try and keep the fees as low as possible by cutting back in some areas,so we can keep the people that are struggling in a difficuilt financial climate.

 

Jennifer

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

can any one tell me why our 'sport' came into being all those years ago long before the AUF came into being?

 

 

[dazza 38]

I did did the same thing Dexter, gave up Pistol shooting because of Flying. My membership per year was $350.That was back in 2003.

 

 

[turboplanner]

can any one tell me why our 'sport' came into being all those years ago long before the AUF came into being?

Because you could hook a lawn mower engine on to a blow up mattress as long as you stayed away from airports and didn't fly above 500 feet?

 

 

[Yenn]

I really cannot understand what all the fuss is aboout. When I go down to the airstrip I see expensive, high tech planes, fitted out with instrumentation which would be suitable for IFR flying. If you want cheap flying go for basic flying, then if you can't afford it. you can't afford it. I bet most of those on this forum get a salary of double what I live on. Stop whingeing and enjoy life.