Sport Pilot Magazine

[Allan CH650CH750]

They must be using a Canberra Calulater

 

12 into $ 90 equals $7.50 a copy, or are they going offer 18 issues for the price of 12 forever

 

One thing the CEO and Board are good at, is Canberra BULL SH#% government spin talk. The truth is membership has gone up by 50 % if I want the same benefits as last year

 

They are nailing more nails into the RAAus coffin everyday

 

Honesty and the Truth Is what the members need and want

 

NOT BULL SH#% FROM SPIN DOCTORS

 

my 2 cents worth

 

 

[rankamateur]

I not sure Jet whether it means the electronic version is successful or not. It could be taken on face value as yes it is successful because not many have taken up the paper offer . But we don't know how many are out there like me who simply decided not to read the electronic version or buy the paper copy.

Or not renew their membership until they need it.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Allan

 

What would you have them do? It is a fact that prior to the magazine changes RAAus was spending somewhere between 300k and 500k per year more than was coming in.

 

The CEO undertook a series of cost cutting exercises and reduced that down some but still insufficient for revenue to cover our costs.

 

If every member needed to pay more to cover the shortfall every member would have been asked to put in about an extra $50 per year. Rather than do that we elected to move to user pays for the paper magazine....

 

So....your King for a day how will you address and sell the changes that address your solution to that problem?

 

Saying that CASA should pay more is the same as saying we should win Lotto....very easy to say and damn difficult to pull off.....The reality is that CASA like every government department everywhere wants to go user pays and their view is that they should infact be paying us $0 per year to administer our own licensing and our own fleet....so that solution is, I can guarantee you, off the table!

 

You only have 2 choices, address the revenue side or address the expenditure side......standard business approaches mean you don't look to revenue until you've had a good look at cost....that has been done.

 

Andy

 

 

[Allan CH650CH750]

I understand there are revenue and expense problems

 

My point of my post is the bull sh#% spin doctor talk from the HQ

 

Be honest and truthful stop the sh#%

 

That would be a good start

 

Cheers

 

 

[Geoff13]

I am with dazza on this one. I now read neither.

 

 

[Geoff13]

AllanWhat would you have them do? It is a fact that prior to the magazine changes RAAus was spending somewhere between 300k and 500k per year more than was coming in.

 

The CEO undertook a series of cost cutting exercises and reduced that down some but still insufficient for revenue to cover our costs.

 

If every member needed to pay more to cover the shortfall every member would have been asked to put in about an extra $50 per year. Rather than do that we elected to move to user pays for the paper magazine....

 

So....your King for a day how will you address and sell the changes that address your solution to that problem?

 

Saying that CASA should pay more is the same as saying we should win Lotto....very easy to say and damn difficult to pull off.....The reality is that CASA like every government department everywhere wants to go user pays and their view is that they should infact be paying us $0 per year to administer our own licensing and our own fleet....so that solution is, I can guarantee you, off the table!

 

You only have 2 choices, address the revenue side or address the expenditure side......standard business approaches mean you don't look to revenue until you've had a good look at cost....that has been done.

 

Andy

At the end of the day the board were probably on a hiding to nothing. It really doesn't matter which way they jumped they would have copped criticism from somewhere.

 

In my case when it comes to magazines I prefer a paper copy so wont bother with the electronic one. I would have accepted an increase in fees because to be honest I feel that I am getting fairly good value for my money.

 

Will I subscribe? Probably not for the simple reasons that 1, I can't be bothered and 2 I don't like the concept of someone gaining twice from my expenses. ie. the publisher charges the RAA to print the mag and then sells the advertising themselves. That is double dipping in anyones book.

 

I would have accepted it if the board came to me and said we need to put fees up because of the following reasons blah-blah-blah. I might have cried and carried on but I would have accepted it.

 

 

[facthunter]

Have CASA communicated that they will NOT pay anything towards admin costs? Nev

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I don't mind the electronic version or the fact members wanted the paper should pay extra for it although I do have to agree that it seems strange to pay someone to print the magazine and then let them earn further income from advertising. Another consideration would have been a reduction in membership fees to counter some of the extra cost but maybe the CEO didn't think it was doable

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

Take the magazine factor out of the equation for a moment. How many of you believe that the registration and licence fees we pay RAA are excessive when compared to other registration and licence fees we pay in our day to day life be it for recreation or business.

 

 

[jetjr]

Paying twice??

 

Id suggest the payment doesnt cover the cost, so they need advertising to cover the rest??

 

 

[dazza 38]

Take the magazine factor out of the equation for a moment. How many of you believe that the registration and licence fees we pay RAA are excessive when compared to other registration and licence fees we pay in our day to day life be it for recreation or business.

The licence and registration fees imo are excessive when compared to GA registrations and licence fees. They only pay a one off fee for their aircraft registration and also a one off licence fee.

But compared to vehicle registration fees, it is cheap.

 

 

[jetjr]

We all pay for CASA licensing and admin. InTaxes and fuel surcharges

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

The licence and registration fees imo are excessive when compared to GA registrations and licence fees. They only pay a one off fee for their aircraft registration and also a one off licence fee.But compared to vehicle registration fees, it is cheap.

You are right there. I choose to ride a motorcycle for pleasure which I get out on maybe four times a year.

 

Rego and insurance is approx $1300 for which I get no direct benefit. In fact, I have to visit the newsagent and BUY my own magazine.

 

 

[dazza 38]

You are right there. I choose to ride a motorcycle for pleasure which I get out on maybe four times a year.Rego and insurance is approx $1300 for which I get no direct benefit. In fact, I have to visit the newsagent and BUY my own magazine.

Yup I have two registered bikes and the rego is expensive being dual seat registered the insurance isnt too bad though. My KTM 640 Adventure is $280 full comp and my KTM1190 adventure is only around $480 full comp. (rating one) and it pays to shop around, my 640 is insured with Insure my ride and my 1190 is insured with QBE.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I think they can do that was issuu. Also with 10,000 views surely that's more then 60% of the members?

True but the other issue with a blog is getting search engine results. Issuu publications don't appear in most search engines results.

If you want more people discovering the RAA you want to make the discovery process as simple as possible

 

 

[DrZoos]

I agree FT a blog/website is the logical movement from paper to digital. The issue is they tend to then go and find some crazy IT mob who charges $500k per annum to manage a site that i could build for $5000 and manage for $1000

 

A site also becomes searchable, its marketable, it has a bigger audience, it attrracts new members and oversease readers and it generally has much higher and automated selling for most ad revenue via google adwords...Banners for existing advertisers are still possible, but properly digtsing the site to include both opens a whole new world of advertising revenue....

 

With 10,000 members plus non members reading a site like that it should generate significant revenue.

 

 

[coljones]

I don't mind the electronic version or the fact members wanted the paper should pay extra for it although I do have to agree that it seems strange to pay someone to print the magazine and then let them earn further income from advertising. Another consideration would have been a reduction in membership fees to counter some of the extra cost but maybe the CEO didn't think it was doable

No double dipping at all. There are, largely, 3 distinct direct costs in the production and distribution of the magazine.

1. editorial to print or electronic format

 

2. printing a physical magazine

 

3. distribution.

 

my understanding is that the advertising only covers the first cost and should be more or less the same whether printed or e-published.

 

The contribution from RAA paid for, and now just the subscribers pays for the latter 2 costs, which are distinct from the editorial costs.

 

The sad thing from this, whole shift away from a print magazine, and effective sub increase, is that there has been no attempt to better allocated the massive increase in costs, which has occurred outside the magazine, to those who benefit from the cost increase. If it was because of the CASA Audit then it would appear that that cost should be charged against Technical which would indicated that the fee increase should have been paid by owners or a subset of owners rather than pilots. I will certainly maintain an interest in how RAA allocates costs against programs.

 

Simply, the cost of the magazine did not cause the deficit, and rundown in reserves. The deficit was caused by other, well known, quantifiable and avoidable factors.

 

 

[Downunder]

But we don't know how many are out there like me who simply decided not to read the electronic version or buy the paper copy.

 

I am with dazza on this one. I now read neither.

Add me to that list......Got sick of the "Great things happening soon" spin.......10 years later and I'm still waiting......

 

In a rather cynical context. What do I get from RAA?

 

They get to update my hours on their data base and a plastic card costs me $220.

 

Aircraft rego costs me $136 (I think) for another plastic card.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

No double dipping at all. There are, largely, 3 distinct direct costs in the production and distribution of the magazine.1. editorial to print or electronic format

2. printing a physical magazine

 

3. distribution.

 

my understanding is that the advertising only covers the first cost and should be more or less the same whether printed or e-published.

 

The contribution from RAA paid for, and now just the subscribers pays for the latter 2 costs, which are distinct from the editorial costs.

 

The sad thing from this, whole shift away from a print magazine, and effective sub increase, is that there has been no attempt to better allocated the massive increase in costs, which has occurred outside the magazine, to those who benefit from the cost increase. If it was because of the CASA Audit then it would appear that that cost should be charged against Technical which would indicated that the fee increase should have been paid by owners or a subset of owners rather than pilots. I will certainly maintain an interest in how RAA allocates costs against programs.

 

Simply, the cost of the magazine did not cause the deficit, and rundown in reserves. The deficit was caused by other, well known, quantifiable and avoidable factors.

That's simply because we don't have a handle on what things actually costs us.......I mean we do at a high level by using some assumptions and reallocating in a spread sheet previous actuals for a period you are interested in, but the chart of accounts isn't set up to manage collection of costs against activities...case in point is printing....all printing goes into the printing expense account...yet clearly! it would be interesting to know at first principle from the ledgers what magazine printing costs were and what office and other printing costs were.......That was why the intent was to change the chart at the swap over to the new financial year....I left before then so don't know if it was done......but if it was then it takes time to populate with sufficient historical data to make reporting on it sensible. You can only manage what you measure. If you cant easily manage it by virtue of the way things are set up then you can be sure in RAAus it will go through to the keeper.....Its often the case that when you need to fix something that is fundamentally broken you have to start with foundations.......as the team was doing.....but that also means the appearance of broken wont be magically fixed overnight...especially if you measure the quality of the paint finish in the building as a measure of complete and the foundations were only laid yesterday....

 

"my understanding is that the advertising only covers the first cost and should be more or less the same whether printed or e-published. The contribution from RAA paid for, and now just the subscribers pays for the latter 2 costs, which are distinct from the editorial costs."

 

That is correct if talking about historical arrangements. It is no longer correct today.......look closely at this cause 1+1 = all 3!

 

 

[jetjr]

What do I get from RAA?

 

You get to fly non certified aircraft without medical, advocacy with the regulator who really doesnt want you flying, insurance, administration and safety management systems required to keep these exemptions in place.

 

Also a magazine with the option of recycling fodder version

 

 

[facthunter]

AND you are a member of a fair sized ( the largest) show where you get a say in how it's run. ALL the small associations should work under a common umbrella as they have most problems in common and could speak with one voice when needed. Nev.

 

 

[rankamateur]

ALL the small associations should work under a common umbrella as they have most problems in common and could speak with one voice when needed.

I count RAA in that group and if they weren't so self absorbed about being the biggest show in town, then the working together and speaking with one voice would be much more likely to occur and bring real benefit to members.

 

 

[ave8rr]

15 Sep and the Sep issue of Sport Pilot is still not on the RAAus Website. Called them to ask why and was informed that hey had "not got around to it yet" been too busy? Guess they want more to subscribe to the paper version.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

They will be busy at the moment, AGM and associated board meeting isn't far away and the CEO and his assistant will be pretty busy making that all happen!.......that said once its produced getting it on ISSUU and the RAAus website is pretty much a non event! shouldn't take more than an hour at most...and that allows for a 30 pack a day smoko breaks.....The amount of material covered at the board meeting is significant and the material produced in support of it to be sent to board members to read and digest ahead of the meeting is significant........

 

Andy

 

 

[FlyingVizsla]

I got September Sport Pilot from the ISSUU website and uploaded it to Mr Vizsla's iPad where he has been reading it for a couple of days. It is a bit confusing as one email from RAA said ISSUU was now the permanent home of Sport Pilot, then another refers to alternatively picking it up from the Facebook page. I have not had much trouble downloading it from ISSUU provided I pick my time (low traffic for higher speed), however I am having trouble downloading the latest upgrade for the iPad - it keeps timing out - an hour or so and it gives up.