Relocating the office...where to?

[turboplanner]

Most wont understand what an opportunity was lost as the libs killed NBN but in time I'm sure they will be labeled as vandals when people finally understand what they have done.Andy

I agree, office technology has a way of changing in stops and starts very quickly; some people might remember how seamlessly we began using fax almost instantaneously and how it was the preferred means of communication for many operations.

 

When the people do wake up to what we've lost it will be electoral dynamite!

 

 

[Keith Page]

Keith, I agree that Regional Fly-ins are a great idea but, to be fair to all RAA members, they have to be a break-even proposition. A good example is the WA fly-in. It was well promoted and organised by the locals and cost RAA, iirc, nothing. The NQ fly-in was not so well promoted and run with too much "assistance" from Steve Tizzard. It was budgeted to cost between $0 and $5,000. It need up being costed at many times that amount.NATFLY costs RA-Aus less than nothing - it actually makes a profit.

 

It is hard to ask WA and Tas members to pay for part of a fly-in in NQ or any other region. No fairness in asking that.

 

RA-Aus was happy to sponsor the first NQ fly-in to get the concept off the ground and could have sustained a small loss under the heading of promotion. But, it is simply not fair to run such a show at a loss year after year and expect other regions to kick in for the party that they probably could never get to.

Hi Don

 

Having RAAus staff at Monto was a cost of $8600 to the Monto Fly in. I find no fairness in this accounting manoeuvre at all. Where is the great cost to RAAus in sponsoring that event? I think that is called that unsponsoring. The $8600 consisted of motel, car hire, travel and staff party time.

 

As you have a communication line to someone on the board I have to question some important budgetary points.

 

Why so many staff from Canberra? Why is this a Fly In cost not an operational cost?

 

This is not fare as Queensland members/Monto paid $8600 to RAAus just to have a Northern Fly In. There is also a hidden Qld administration cost, what about all the organising people who gave up their day time work to organise and run this event the cost would run into thousands.

 

The revenue stream for the Monto Fly In is as follows 10k from RAAus and 5k from CASA plus site fees and earnings totalled 21k cost of the event 21k hence broke even. The following organisations received -- RFDS $1,500, Rescue Chopper $ 800 and angel flight $200. Put $8600 back into the pool to me that makes it quite healthy.

 

Your distances are not that accurate -- as the crow fly’s Temora to Launceston is 430nm Temora to Townsville 912nm.. Townsville people fly to Temora you know. Hence Tasmania is very closer to Temora. Brisbane to Townsville is 602nm. Tasmania is not a long way away.

 

See the whole Fly In concept is designed for the “Southern” members and I cannot get over the flow of excuses when a suggestion comes up about moving it “North” occasionally.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

[skeptic36]

When the people do wake up to what we've lost it will be electoral dynamite!

But we never had it, nor were we going to get it, as I wrote above it was going to be 150 years before the NBN was complete. By that time you'll be able to teleport yourself to the meeting

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

The revenue stream for the Monto Fly In is as follows 10k from RAAus and 5k from CASA plus site fees and earnings totalled 21k cost of the event 21k hence broke even. The following organisations received -- RFDS $1,500, Rescue Chopper $ 800 and angel flight $200. Put $8600 back into the pool to me that makes it quite healthy.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

Hi Keith,

 

You must have access to more data than I have. From the RAA Profit & Loss statement June 2013 NORRA-AUS (Monto fly-in) income was $9,000 expenditure was $25,600 making a loss of $16,600 (figures rounded). This would not include staff wages & salaries, but we expect them to be there selling merchandise, processing memberships & registrations, answering questions and generally running the event. RAA employees are not volunteers and I don't begrudge them some compensation for giving up their long weekend, being away from home, travelling etc.

 

 

 

As for the other events -

 

Natfly made $4,000

 

Avalon broke even

 

Westfly (no income) lost $7,000

 

Other Fly-ins lost $4,000

 

 

 

Note that staff allowances for Natfly = $178.88 and Avalon = $150. These are hardly breaking the bank.

 

 

 

The two events that lost money are new events. Natfly is profitable because it has a reputation and can therefore attract sponsors and crowds. It stays at a venue for years so the local Council and other organisations can see the benefits and upgrade services and facilities. Monto was a camp under the wing, because it clashed with another long established event in the town so the accommodation was booked out. Westfly was run by another entity, hence no income for RAA.

 

 

 

Sue

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hi Sue

 

I do have access to information.

 

With regard to marketing of events some grow, some stagnate we must come up with some innovative ideas at all cost we must keep them with a fresh outlook.

 

The other point to consider "The new kid on the block" is quite often more successful than the old ones. We can bange along on these forums and nothing will ever happen it is case of getting off our buts and "Promote Sports Aviation" to the general public and remember the future members are mixed up with this crowd.

 

We must be seen out there.

 

People through the gates is what counts.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

Not sure why RAA has to get involved with all the fly-ins anyway. For the last 5 years we have been going to a great fly-in at White Gum Farm (York WA). It has great facilities and fantastic atmosphere. The hosts Gordon and Gary waived camping fees for the weekend, killed a few sheep and had a fantastic roast dinner for $10 a head and we passed a few $$ over the bar in the evening whilst chatting around the several fires keeping warm.

 

Along comes RAA and says you have a great fly-in how about making it a statewide event and we will sponsor it. The birth of Westfly. First year a lot of people came (i counted over 50 aircraft on the ground and aircraft were coming and going all weekend) , price of dinner went to $25 and served around 250 meals. Next year I counted 20 aircraft on the ground and it was very quiet and i only saw about 40 people in for dinner. Coffee vans and ice cream vans were packing up and leaving for lack of sales. Campers were now also charged $10 a head.

 

I worked out with traveling fuel, camp fees, meal fees, flying fuel costs for the weekend, for my family around $500 for the weekend.

 

RAA turned a great, inexpensive social flying weekend that was White Gum Farm Fly-in, into a boring, expensive RAA event.

 

Along with the others that disappeared after the first Westfly, we won't be there next time.

 

Kev

 

 

[DonRamsay]

G'day Keith,

 

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, but we've had a tough week this week with the loss of my father-in-law.

 

Thanks for the geography lesson but I was well aware of those distances. When I worked for BHP in the 1970s I used to do a fair bit of travel into, in particular Central Queensland. My Boss, who was based in Melbourne, said to me on the phone one day that when I was next in Brisbane would I drop into Townsville and talk to xxx.

 

I then offered him a similar lesson in Geography to the one you kindly offered me.

 

Sue has eloquently answered the question on the economics of the Monto Fly-in. If you want to pick a fight with somebody over the Accounting for it you need to talk to Steve Tizzard and Eugene Reid. I know no more than has been reported publicly.

 

But, even going on your numbers, getting $10,000 from RA-Aus means that non-Queensland members subsidised the Monto Fly-in to the tune of $10,000. Or, based on official numbers, much as $16,600 . Since Qld members make up something less than 30% of all RA-Aus members, the non-Queenslanders shelled out somewhere between $7,000 and $11,000 so that a few Queenslanders could have a party and contribute funds to some worthwhile entities. I'd like to understand what about that is/was fair to RA-Aus members?

 

I am fairly well persuaded now that moving NATFLY around is the best way to promote Rec Aviation. It may be difficult to get lots of aircraft and vendors to go to Tassie, WA or NT or even Townsville/Mackay/Cairns but most other locations should be able to host a successful NATFLY.

 

Kev,

 

Sad to hear what happened to the WA Fly-in. Unfortunate that what I believed was a well intentioned initiative from Gavin didn't work out so well.

 

Don

 

 

[DonRamsay]

As reported elsewhere, at Natfly, Mark Clayton (GM) asked attendees at his Q&A session if they were in favour of a move out of Canberra. There was a preponderant view that it would be a good cost-saving move.

 

 

[coljones]

There is no reason to have BHP in Melbourne but I wouldn't put it at Newman in WA as, while the local miners might get some fun, the rest of the far flung BHP miners (and shareholders) would have to travel desperate distances to give the BHP Board grief.

 

In the past the RAA Board have done many things without the benefit of a business case, and the poor results are there for all to see, Mark has yet to produce even a basic outline of a case for moving RAA away from the ACT.

 

Until there are real numbers on the table, rather than an inclination not to like the people who live in Canberra, for whatever reason, or the cold, there is little point having any straw polls other than, perhaps, "where do you want to go". Out of 10, 000 people you will, perhaps, get as many as 100 responses and 100 different locations.

 

There are lots of places out there that don't have RPT (Reliable Public Transport) and even fewer have GPT (Guaranteed Public Transport) and if I were a board member or in need to visit the office other than on a site seeing tour I really would like to see GPT at the top of the list. "Time to spare, go by air" might be a fun saying, particularly for RecPlanes, but it really can bugger up your day.

 

Keep well.

 

 

[poteroo]

There is no reason to have BHP in Melbourne but I wouldn't put it at Newman in WA as, while the local miners might get some fun, the rest of the far flung BHP miners (and shareholders) would have to travel desperate distances to give the BHP Board grief.In the past the RAA Board have done many things without the benefit of a business case, and the poor results are there for all to see, Mark has yet to produce even a basic outline of a case for moving RAA away from the ACT.

 

Until there are real numbers on the table, rather than an inclination not to like the people who live in Canberra, for whatever reason, or the cold, there is little point having any straw polls other than, perhaps, "where do you want to go". Out of 10, 000 people you will, perhaps, get as many as 100 responses and 100 different locations.

 

There are lots of places out there that don't have RPT (Reliable Public Transport) and even fewer have GPT (Guaranteed Public Transport) and if I were a board member or in need to visit the office other than on a site seeing tour I really would like to see GPT at the top of the list. "Time to spare, go by air" might be a fun saying, particularly for RecPlanes, but it really can bugger up your day.

 

Keep well.

We should recognise that RAAus is a national body, and it will only create petty 'state' and parochial angst if it were to be moved out of the ACT. Perhaps a roomier,(better), facility is needed in Canberra, and the Board might consider this from the aspect of airport proximity and road access. Regional locations do not have the frequency of flights nor the choice of buildings. RAAus cannot blame its' past woes on location or venue. It's been due to people failures - wrong decisions and inadequate people to do the essential jobs. Swapping locations won't make any difference. The CEO needs to quit the speculation and get on with RAAus operations per se.

 

happy days,

 

 

[DonRamsay]

There is no reason to have BHP in Melbourne but I wouldn't put it at Newman in WA . . .

BHP might be better located in London, close to the Financial and Commodity Markets than Melbourne. But I'm not sure that has much relationship to where RA-Aus HQ should be located.

 

. . . Mark has yet to produce even a basic outline of a case for moving RAA away from the ACT.

The point of raising it is that it is a potential cost-reduction exercise. Of course Mark hasn't done the cost/benefits analysis or even come up with a short list of candidate locations. Mark should not even think of doing that for a single moment. He does not, and should not, have time. That is a job for a sub-committee. Mark needs to be thinking Strategically and making suggestions to the Board as to how the RA-Aus cost structure can be permanently lowered. As well as the possibility of relocating to a lower cost environment and realising the capital gain on the Canberra facility, Mark has also accurately highlighted the Magazine and Insurance areas as big targets for cost reductions. Based on the leg work of a committee, Mark would be in a position to decide if relocation were a goer and what a case put to the Board for a decision should look like. But, let's not dismiss something out of hand that could save us all a lot of dollars.

 

. . . there is little point having any straw polls . . .

The straw polls were a spur of the moment thing. What they did show was that in that small group it was not howled down. Nobody is claiming it as a valid, random sample and representative of an informed majority view of RA-Aus Members. And it will take the informed view of a majority of RA-Aus Members to see RA-Aus move away from Fyshwick.

 

There are lots of places out there that don't have RPT (Reliable Public Transport) and even fewer have GPT (Guaranteed Public Transport) and if I were a board member or in need to visit the office other than on a site seeing tour I really would like to see GPT at the top of the list. . . .

For example, Temora does not have even RegularPT and that would count against it compared with Narromine that has GPT to Dubbo just up the road.

Exactly how each factor is weighted would take some consideration and shouldn't lose site of the fact that RA-Aus should be run for the benefit of the members not just the elected Board. The need for Board Members to meet at the Head Office is very questionable. At the moment they are required to have two face-to-face Board Meetings each year - one in conjunction with Natfly and one in conjunction with the AGM. The last two AGMs have been held away from Canberra and no Board Meetings were held at the Head Office. Things would have to be in a pretty parlous state for the Board to have to have an extra Board Meeting and have it in Canberra. That did happen in February last year when the Board was under siege for governance breaches but, in light of their meeting schedule should the weighting for GPT or RPT for the Board be all that high?

 

Don

 

 

[DonRamsay]

We should recognise that RAAus is a national body, and it will only create petty 'state' and parochial angst if it were to be moved out of the ACT.

We already have "parochial angst" from some of the less clear thinking regions. Some Queenslanders see RA-Aus as being run for the benefit of "southerners" and we all know what some Sand Gropers think of anyone living East of Kalgoorlie. In my humble view, I think it is about time all Australians accepted that the aviation legislation and controlling bodies are Australian and apply equally regardless of what State or Region you inhabit.

 

 

 

Perhaps a roomier,(better), facility is needed in Canberra . . .

Mark Clayton is on record of saying that the facility in Canberra is half-empty. If we didn't have to have a Board Room to seat 13 Board Members and have masses of paper records in a bank of compactus filing systems and if we had better IT systems, we'd need even less space.

 

 

 

 

. . . Regional locations do not have the frequency of flights nor the choice of buildings.

Frequency or even availability of RPT has been discussed and I believe dismissed above.

 

"Choice of buildings" is another matter. It is possible to adapt a large hangar / maintenance facility into a brilliant national HQ for RA-Aus. And, from time to time such facilities come on the market like one that is currently available at Cootamundra. One thing for sure is that we could have a better and more relevant facility at a regional centre than we could ever afford in the very pricey Canberra - even if it had to be purpose built.

 

 

. . . RAAus cannot blame its' past woes on location or venue. It's been due to people failures - wrong decisions and inadequate people to do the essential jobs. Swapping locations won't make any difference.

Could not agree more. I don't even disagree with the decision to put it in Canberra in the first place. BUt, the issue here is not fixing past mistakes it is looking forward to find the best location for RA-Aus for the future at a reduced cost to the membership than staying in Canberra would allow us.

 

 

 

 

The CEO needs to quit the speculation and get on with RAAus operations per se. . . .

I earnestly hope the CEO (General Manager) continues to scratch his head and come up with out of the square thinking. That is exactly what you want from your chief executive. We had one that kept his head down for four+ years and look where we ended up? Progress comes from innovative thinking not from just getting on with routine business. I sincerely hope that no CEO thinks he/she is being paid to just "get on with operations".

 

Don

 

 

[GAFA]

Nice little airport just south of Newcastle has just been purchased by an aviation group. They (Matt Hall and Co) might be open to the notion of having RA-AUS HQ based at Aeropelican.

 

 

[Keith Page]

I will re-ignite this old thread.

 

A while back there was a lot of talk about RAAus relocating to somewhere, why not Wellcamp.

 

I was thinking Wellcamp would be good *Open spaces about the airport *Big pool of people for staff * Real estate not expensive *There is room to put some hangers up * RPT, light aircraft will full stop and then it is a walk direct to the office.

 

Looks like all that will fit very well.

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[Geoff13]

And F-T could visit every day

 

 

[dazza 38]

I will re-ignite this old thread.A while back there was a lot of talk about RAAus relocating to somewhere, why not Wellcamp.

I was thinking Wellcamp would be good *Open spaces about the airport *Big pool of people for staff * Real estate not expensive *There is room to put some hangers up * RPT, light aircraft will full stop and then it is a walk direct to the office.

 

Looks like all that will fit very well.

 

Regards

 

KP.

I don't think RAA aircraft are welcome anywhere near Wellcamp, if landing charges are anything to go by.

 

 

[rankamateur]

I don't think RAA aircraft are welcome anywhere near Wellcamp, if landing charges are anything to go by.

They are quite open about that on their website.

 

 

[Keenaviator]

Why would we want to have our HQ based in a control zone where heavies operate anyway? Perhaps we should be looking more seriously at pooling our resources with other sport aviation groups such as the HGFA, GFA, Rotorcraft, SAAA and so on.

 

 

[Keith Page]

I don't think RAA aircraft are welcome anywhere near Wellcamp, if landing charges are anything to go by.

At it stands at the moment, that is correct.

 

However under the banner of education, development and advancement of aviation formulate a proposal to Wagners so how one goes.

 

Wagners have proved that they think ahead a bit regarding aviation in Australia, so have a think about the education aspect. Where are the colleges?

 

Regards

 

KP.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Wellcamp would not be a suitable location for a HQ. It's purpose isn't for light and recreational aircraft, there is also a possibility of it becoming a controlled airspace/zone in the next few years, thus limiting our access anyway.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Wellcamp would not be a suitable location for a HQ. It's purpose isn't for light and recreational aircraft, there is also a possibility of it becoming a controlled airspace/zone in the next few years, thus limiting our access anyway.

OK Rhysmcc..

 

You came up with all negatives for Wellcamp so if Wellcamp is no good so where do you suggest the office should be located?

 

What would happen if someone asked the Wagners and they said "Yes".

 

Regrards

 

KP.

 

 

[coljones]

Maitland NSW

 

 

[kasper]

Oh all right then - Glen Innes - even with the new flying school in progress its wide open spaces and lots of space.

 

And its nearly as far away from everybody so as to be just as remote as Canberra ;-)

 

 

[Keith Page]

Oh all right then - Glen Innes - even with the new flying school in progress its wide open spaces and lots of space.And its nearly as far away from everybody so as to be just as remote as Canberra ;-)

What about Ayres Rock that will be equidistant for everyone. That move will be considering the Perth members.

Plenty of flat area minimal air traffic..

 

KP..

 

 

[rhysmcc]

OK Rhysmcc..You came up with all negatives for Wellcamp so if Wellcamp is no good so where do you suggest the office should be located?

What would happen if someone asked the Wagners and they said "Yes".

 

Regrards

 

KP.

The Wagners don't have any control over whether it becomes controlled airspace or not. The airlines would not want to mix with the light traffix.

 

As to where else, personally I like SEQ, caboolture, redcliffe or Jacob Wells