Board meeting motions

[Guest Andys@coffs]

For those with a financial bent Ross inferred that we will be changing the way we collect costs.

 

To do that means our chart of accounts will be restructured. Restructuring a chart of Accounts generally isn't done in the middle of the year if you can avoid it, rather its done as you exit from one year and start on the next year. So hopefully next financial year we will be able to accurately answer the question, how much does it cost for Service A to be delivered to Z members.....Not quite activity based costing but pretty close to it......Activity based costing can cost you money to implement because where as before your transactional team were doing, they will then spend time recording time and entering into a timesheet system against subaccounts.... If the activity at that level is vital then its a cost we can happily incur, at present where we are struggling for capacity reporting at that level is IMHO a level of inefficiency we cant afford until we automate.

 

Until the new FY it will continue to require some number crunching analysis every time the question of service costs gets asked. Personally I'm pretty happy that the CEO with his Accounting background will have no issues changing the chart, whether the chart then collects the costs and the sub element costs we need collected can only be determined when he has had sufficient exposure to the business to know what we need to report on. 1 year in I reckon he will have that knowledge and we will be the better for it, where as if he did it now he doesn't understand the appropriate carve up needed and will go too high or too low with the inefficiencies that creates.

 

Andy

 

 

[DGL Fox]

David, I am real, the funds only go so far. If you have bottomless pockets then so be it, but some of us have to actually save money to be able to fly and enjoy the sport. $40 per year may not sound like much, but then hanger fees increase, flying training fees increase, landing fees at some of our airports are out of control and so on. May be chicken feed to you but not to others...

No I am not rich, and I think I am being realistic, you can not do anything these days without having fee's increased from time to time, no matter what you are doing whether it be playing soccer on weekends, you normally play match fees and a club membership fees, well they all go up and if your budget it so tight that you are finding it hard to make ends meet, well maybe you need to cut back on your leisure activities or like someone said a few less beers or smokes, $40 per year is only approx 11c per day ...

David

 

 

[robinsm]

Dont drink, dont smoke, next suggestion...?>??

 

 

[DGL Fox]

Good to hear..me either..costs to much !!!

 

David

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I see some members borking at paying an extra $40 per year...per year guys...not per week or fortnight or even per month...per year... to keep our magazine coming out to us the way we like it.As I have said before here that I don't mind paying this money providing that the money only goes to paying for the magazine and not diverted to some other purpose. We spend and have spent big money training and flying and in some cases buying an aircraft yet some are worried about $40 per year...come on get real..

David

How about the members who don't mind or would rather get the magazine on time and in digital form, will we avoid having to pay the $40 increase? Keep adding costs and we may just find alot more members will go the RPL+experimental GA and RA-AUS will just be left to members who can't get a medical. The less members, the more the fees will need to keep going up to cover the shortfall.

 

 

[DGL Fox]

How about the members who don't mind or would rather get the magazine on time and in digital form, will we avoid having to pay the $40 increase? Keep adding costs and we may just find alot more members will go the RPL+experimental GA and RA-AUS will just be left to members who can't get a medical. The less members, the more the fees will need to keep going up to cover the shortfall.

I think it was discussed earlier that the board could do a bulk email or in the magazine or both and ask members what they prefer, digital or print and based on your reply that is what you would get and if you opted for the print you would get the extra $40 fee, I still think there is a cost associated even with digital but that would have to be determined by the board.

I don't like paying extra money at the best of times but I think if we want the printed version and if we believe what we are being told that the magazine is unsustainable in it's current form well I guess I will pay the extra money so that I have my magazine to sit down and read every month.

 

David

 

 

[AVOCET]

Dont drink, dont smoke, next suggestion...?>??

That good advice Deb ,

 

Just a short story ;

 

After my prang 2011 i took up smoking again . Not being a money man ,

 

( accountant wife )

 

Two years later she gave me the bill for

 

$ 4000.00 yes , recites given as evidence .

 

Needless to say IVE GIVEN UP !

 

Mike

 

 

[rhysmcc]

That would be the better option IMHO, instead of a $40 increase in fee, it would be a $40 yearly subscription to the magazine. However if the board/CEO can find a way that the magazine can be cost neutral then even better.

 

I think we still need to address the issue of wages and how we can get that back under control. A believe a couple of positions we're put on to control the registration disaster, now that it's under control has these positions been cut or absorbed in other areas of raaus? Or is the new system reliant on the extra staff?

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Oh well, if it gets too high there will be my aircraft for sale, resignation from Raa and I will take up boating, cheaper in the long run...

We don't want to loose you robinsm .....

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

How about the members who don't mind or would rather get the magazine on time and in digital form, will we avoid having to pay the $40 increase? Keep adding costs and we may just find alot more members will go the RPL+experimental GA and RA-AUS will just be left to members who can't get a medical. The less members, the more the fees will need to keep going up to cover the shortfall.

You'll pay a lot more with your RPL and experimental GA...you'll be getting soaked for maintenance for a start....I know I work in GA......

 

 

[coljones]

I think some of you are missing the point - the cost of the magazine is embedded in the fee that you currently pay. The cost has, in all probability, has not increased on a per member basis since year dot. The real issue is that OTHER NON-PUBLISHING functions have increased in cost overall due to a variety of reasons including cock-ups in the administration of registration and the associated quality control required to establish baselines and acceptable processes.

 

I am not looking for a reduction in staff costs as a way forward because my inclination is that the increase in staff and office costs we are seeing is due to underfunding of staff and office costs (and a bit of featherbedding in the executive suite) in the past which has lead us directly to the stoush with CASA and the, seemingly, labyrinthine registration system which was built up and the blowout in costs to fix that side of the business.

 

For a significant minority of the board to sit on their hands and declare that they don't like deficits and are unwilling to draw down on the reserves to fix a problem created in the past and which could have been fixed if they were not so intent on squirreling away cash into an undefined slush fund suggests to me that a significant majority of the board is off in cloud cuckoo land and should do themselves, RAA and its members a big favour and hand in their resignations forthwith.

 

The cost of the magazine is a smoke screen. Unless the cost benefits in other areas of RAA are rapidly established, and dealt with our financial deja vu will keep on repeating itself. If you can the magazine then I want my $60 back!!!

 

 

[Geoff13]

I think some of you are missing the point - the cost of the magazine is embedded in the fee that you currently pay. The cost has, in all probability, has not increased on a per member basis since year dot. The real issue is that OTHER NON-PUBLISHING functions have increased in cost overall due to a variety of reasons including ****-ups in the administration of registration and the associated quality control required to establish baselines and acceptable processes.I am not looking for a reduction in staff costs as a way forward because my inclination is that the increase in staff and office costs we are seeing is due to underfunding of staff and office costs (and a bit of featherbedding in the executive suite) in the past which has lead us directly to the stoush with CASA and the, seemingly, labyrinthine registration system which was built up and the blowout in costs to fix that side of the business.

 

For a significant minority of the board to sit on their hands and declare that they don't like deficits and are unwilling to draw down on the reserves to fix a problem created in the past and which could have been fixed if they were not so intent on squirreling away cash into an undefined slush fund suggests to me that a significant majority of the board is off in cloud cuckoo land and should do themselves, RAA and its members a big favour and hand in their resignations forthwith.

 

The cost of the magazine is a smoke screen. Unless the cost benefits in other areas of RAA are rapidly established, and dealt with our financial deja vu will keep on repeating itself. If you can the magazine then I want my $60 back!!!

Thats about exactly what I was trying to so about 8 pages ago Col. Ditto from me.

 

There is no problem running a deficit over a relatively short term so long as the underlying issues are being addressed.

 

Cheers Geoff13

 

 

[dazza 38]

I did mention previously that I haven't read Flight Safety since the magazine stopped being published.

 

But I do receive a electronic magazine via email called Unsealed 4x4 which is free BTW and I read that on my IPad. I do see magazines all ending up electronic but it will be a real shame. I personally like to read and feel a magazine than read a electronic version on my Lap top or Ipad.

 

 

[rankamateur]

I see some members borking at paying an extra $40 per year...per year guys...not per week or fortnight or even per month...per year... to keep our magazine coming out to us the way we like it.As I have said before here that I don't mind paying this money providing that the money only goes to paying for the magazine and not diverted to some other purpose. We spend and have spent big money training and flying and in some cases buying an aircraft yet some are worried about $40 per year...come on get real..

David

David, just as some people can afford to buy their hangar from you and some, like me have to buy from a more affordable supplier, so too, some people will have to reconsider membership of an organisation which has two increases in the very recent past and is already talking about the next one! There is a limit on everyones hobby budget and monopoly membership is just one of the costs making some members take a good long look at wether they can continue to afford to be in this game.

 

 

[rankamateur]

You'll pay a lot more with your RPL and experimental GA...you'll be getting soaked for maintenance for a start....I know I work in GA......

When we are being hammered on maintenance, there will be nothing stopping a mass move to RPL, unless some sensible owner maintenance pathways are sorted out I can't blame them, all the extra CTA access and weight allowance will be a bonus.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

You'll pay a lot more with your RPL and experimental GA...you'll be getting soaked for maintenance for a start....I know I work in GA......

I thought experimental GA allowed the owner/builder to do their own maintaince?

 

Maj do you charge a different rate as a LAME then you do as a L2 (assuming you have both quals)?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I think some of you are missing the point - the cost of the magazine is embedded in the fee that you currently pay. The cost has, in all probability, has not increased on a per member basis since year dot. The real issue is that OTHER NON-PUBLISHING functions have increased in cost overall due to a variety of reasons including ****-ups in the administration of registration and the associated quality control required to establish baselines and acceptable processes.I am not looking for a reduction in staff costs as a way forward because my inclination is that the increase in staff and office costs we are seeing is due to underfunding of staff and office costs (and a bit of featherbedding in the executive suite) in the past which has lead us directly to the stoush with CASA and the, seemingly, labyrinthine registration system which was built up and the blowout in costs to fix that side of the business.

 

For a significant minority of the board to sit on their hands and declare that they don't like deficits and are unwilling to draw down on the reserves to fix a problem created in the past and which could have been fixed if they were not so intent on squirreling away cash into an undefined slush fund suggests to me that a significant majority of the board is off in cloud cuckoo land and should do themselves, RAA and its members a big favour and hand in their resignations forthwith.

 

The cost of the magazine is a smoke screen. Unless the cost benefits in other areas of RAA are rapidly established, and dealt with our financial deja vu will keep on repeating itself. If you can the magazine then I want my $60 back!!!

As was pointed out by Andy, all members could receive a $40 reduction in membership fees to make up for the lack of a hard copy magazine, and at the same time a $40 increase in fees due to the increase costs of operating. By going with a digital copy, you avoid having just getting hit with a $40 increase (ie without the reduction).

 

If you don't reduce the staff (ie wages) which is the single biggest cost (i don't have the figures in front of me but I recall it being almost if not bigger then all other costs combined), then we will need to raise the membership fee or reduce other services (such as the magazine, NATFLY etc)

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I did mention previously that I haven't read Flight Safety since the magazine stopped being published.But I do receive a electronic magazine via email called Unsealed 4x4 which is free BTW and I read that on my IPad. I do see magazines all ending up electronic but it will be a real shame. I personally like to read and feel a magazine than read a electronic version on my Lap top or Ipad.

Your safety is your responsibility, blaming the end of paper printing for not keeping up to date is pretty poor excuse.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Your safety is your responsibility, blaming the end of paper printing for not keeping up to date is pretty poor excuse.

I tell you what FT, you just worry about yourself and I will worry about me.

 

 

[Chird65]

...The reality is that we have a lot of transformation in RAAus to undertake and again, if deficit wasn't our driver we would likely focus on the bigger change items as being in more need of priority, but deficit is and has been the order of the day and as such we have to review.

 

Is such an approach not logical? What otherwise would you suggest?

 

Some folk have suggested they would be supportive of a due's increase while we transform, others have suggested that such an approach is folly. I personally agree with the latter, however I would love to hear from all that have contributed to this thread (and not already answered that question). As a member are you prepared to pay another $30 to $40 per year membership fees while we transform? As Col Jones and others have suggested, we have significant reserves still despite a few years of deficit, but until we have the strategic plan that identifies where we are transforming too, I'm personally nervous about digging too far into it. Once we have that strategy if we find that the reserves are in advance of what we need I would have no hesitation in cutting them back to what is prudent.

 

So what do folk think?

 

Andy

I think before anyone decides on increasing the membership fee they have a look at the flying hours of members. me personally, I have not flown for 3 years and have to justify the cost every year. I want to fly in the future so I continue to pay the membership. If I, and all the rest of the currently not flying members, were to quit where would the remainder be.

 

I found RaAus via the internet, the magazine could be electronic like the EAA one see "Begin reading this issue" (not sure if that will work unless you have joined) but it is complete, easy to read and search.

 

As I have said it is a struggle each year and I am sure I am not the only person in that basket.

 

 

[skeptic36]

Dont drink, dont smoke, next suggestion...?>??

Loose women......

 

 

[rankamateur]

...Fast cars and slow racehorses.....

 

 

[DGL Fox]

David, just as some people can afford to buy their hangar from you and some, like me have to buy from a more affordable supplier, so too, some people will have to reconsider membership of an organisation which has two increases in the very recent past and is already talking about the next one! There is a limit on everyones hobby budget and monopoly membership is just one of the costs making some members take a good long look at wether they can continue to afford to be in this game.

I don't recall ever giving you a full quote so I don't know how you can make a comment about the affordability of my sheds. From what you are saying you are one of the people that can afford to build a hangar, but your budget won't stretch another $40 per year?..you should have only screwed half the shed off and you would have easily saved the $40.00, like everything in life if you can't afford it don't do it or find something within your budget.

David

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I tell you what FT, you just worry about yourself and I will worry about me.

Its unlikely that anyone is really influenced by these magazines, a lot of the time they are just a bit of infotainment.