RAAus/SAAA - Thoughts on a merger?

[flyvulcan]

The bottom line here is the RAA model is largely working and the important niche SAAA have comtrolled is not going too well.

Actually, the niche that the SAAA has "controlled" (not a good term) is going quite well (and yes, there are issues but generally not large). The problem with the SAAA is really the instability within management. The turnover in the National Council is by far the biggest problem that faces the SAAA, rather than its procedures and processes.

 

Under an amalgamated entity, I would envisage a properly qualified board deciding company policy, a full time set of core management staff who have the requisite skills to run the business, and then a proper organisation structure to run the core business with voluntary staff being incorporated into the structure, as is done now in both organisations. In my opinion, it is imperative to have a core set of salaried full-time managers (so maybe a CEO, Technical Manager, Office Manager etc.) whose sole focus is to run the business. The SAAA does not have this and I consider it a primary reason why management of the SAAA is suffering at the moment.

 

I feel that an amalgamation of the organisations will give the new entity scope to be run properly.

 

 

[jetjr]

The idealology of two groups under one banner is good but as with any deal there has to be something in it for both parties.

 

If your not talking of one entity then its just sharing some resources.

 

RAA taking on heavier and more complex tecnical role with a entire new class of aircraft is a costly burden. Maybe that can be worked out but stanard raa members, especially those rag n tibe guys will definitely not want to fund it in time or money.

 

If its only a managership change needed why not do it now under current arrangements? if its because SAAA membership cant handle costs of paid roles, then you are thinking of RAA members partially paying for it. Cant have it both ways.

 

These current roles are already fully/over committed. A danger RAA faces is that if a couple of key staff move on there would be big holes to fill.

 

 

[apm]

FV, maybe we need to nominate you to SAAA NC to pursue this, I am a member of both also and agree that an amaglamated entity would be beneficial for administration.

 

I believe SAAA's shortfall is a member benefit. There is no compulsion to continue membership once you have your Experimental CoA, so join up, build then leave and fly your plane legally. ie: no real benefit in continuing membership. Relies totally on goodwill & churn for the organization to continue.

 

With RAA, stop membership = grounded. But there are some benefits (the cost of membership is more than covered by the PL insurance cover alone).

 

Andrew

 

 

[kgwilson]

The dumbest thing CASA ever did when passing responsibility to RA-Aus was having RAA aircraft on a separate register administered by RAA, then not providing sufficient funding so annual registration fees had to be invoked. The most sensible thing would be to have all aircraft on the same register (VH) & access to CTR so long as the pilot has the appropriate radio & Transponder. This is how it is in NZ & there are 2 Recreational Organisations operating side by side, each able to train and sign off on recreational licences. Could it be changed here? Of course but it would require some willingness on CASAs part so the likelihood is virtually zero.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm disappointed by the failure of the SAAA to achieve harmonious administration. They almost doubled the membership cost of the group I was in and I got pretty short shrift when I tried to convince them of the injustice and adverse effects of their new policy. Not impressed with that because I thought there was sound reasoning in my submission

 

. The RAAus has done business with them before (Administrative at charged rates). The RAAus HAS changed and is on a stable footing . It's time for straight talk with NO inference of WE are better than you . I would be worried that we become as accepting of the amount of paperwork and interference that SAAA just accept. We have more to lose potentially, so go in with eyes wide open.

 

The build skills are good, but most just build versions of one aircraft. Some LAME qualified people can build marvelous creations. There is not much talked about pilotage and airmanship. The emphasis is on the plane. The pilot base is the PPL. The initiative for the RPL came from the SAAA, and I'm sure their attitude to the outcome would be as much disappointment as many generally have elsewhere. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

SAAA building comes a bit more expensive than RAAus building, due to the Technical councillor inspections and the Certificate of Airworthiness inspection. The RAAus build requires that you maintain RAAus membership and renew registration every year. It does not take manyy years of flying for the SAAA experimental builder to be in front finance wise. I fly both SAAA Experimental and RAAus homebuilt and it costs more to fly RAAus.

 

My post is now on the SAAA forum, so if you really want to amalgamate the 2 bodies, have your say there. Who knows another SAAA member may actually look at the forum. I expect not many will and probably only Howard Mason.

 

It will not happen by only talking about it on this forum, we will also have to convince RAAus management that it is a good idea.

 

 

[Geoff13]

You need to convince the RAAus membership that it is a good idea as well.

 

 

[Brett]

That's partly true about the costs Yenn. I have built in both RAA and SAAA. I have just paid my insurance now for the VH plane and the insurance is an extra $700 a year for the same value plane due to having to have liability insurance for a VH plane. Liability insurance comes with your RAA side of things. So the RAA costs per year are significantly cheaper by my calculations.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

RAA taking on heavier and more complex tecnical role with a entire new class of aircraft is a costly burden. Maybe that can be worked out but stanard raa members, especially those rag n tibe guys will definitely not want to fund it in time or money.

Jetjr, you are still looking at it from a perspective of RAAus "taking over" the SAAA. This is not the case.

 

The SAAA currently self administers on a cost neutral basis. It has a fully salaried CEO and pays a third party to undertake all administrative functions (membership, organising training etc), so it self funds on a cost neutral basis all the same functions that RAAus provides for its members (licensing and registrations aside as these are not required under functions of the SAAA).

 

In an amalgamation (not a take-over), the income that would normally be derived through SAAA activities would continue to fund the activities of the "Experimental" division of the organisation, including having a salaried person in management of the new organisation, but would also contribute towards the administrative running of the organisation as a whole, which due to the fact that admin functions were not being doubled up would mean that the contribution towards administrative costs from both what were previously RAAus income and SAAA income would reduce. There is a direct cost benefit to current RAAus members.

 

The SAAA is currently self funding its Part 149 development. RAAus is currently self funding its Part 149 development. Amalgamation immediately provides a cost benefit in only having a single Part 149 development program running and provides a larger pool of volunteers who could assist in the process. This is another benefit for all members of both organisations.

 

The SAAA currently has a Safety Managment System in place, as does RAAus. The two systems could be administered by a single person, rather than by two, thereby saving manpower. This is a benefit to both organisations.

 

The SAAA currently has a self funded magazine which is very readable, as does RAAus. An amalgamation would reduce the need for two editors and provide a fantastic magazine, which are benefits for both organisations.

 

You can see where I am going here. It is not a case of RAAus taking over the SAAA and having the workload and cost burden of doing so. In an amalgamated entity, each organisation is bringing its role, it's income, it's resources to the table (which are all cost neutral at the moment for both organisations) and in doing so, will provide cost and manpower benefits to both organisations.

 

In addition, the SAAA has over $1.0m in its cash reserves which it has not touched for years. When combined with the RAAus cash reserves, the overall cash reserves for a combined entity would be looking pretty healthy. Perhaps there is scope to make a home at an airfield for the new combined entity where the home of recreational flying in Australia could be established. Our annual Ozkosh super fly-in and air show could be held there...

 

Finally, a single strong representative body that would be a focal point in any dealings with CASA would likely be appealing to CASA.

 

Who knows, if an amalgamation between the SAAA and RAAus was successful, then the Warbirds, trikes etc. may be interested in coming on board forming an appropriate division within the organisation, thereby making a "super" recreational aviation representative body, but that is getting ahead of the game at this point.

 

So Jetjr, I don't think that it is a correct assertion that an amalgamation (not a take over) would be either a huge burden on RAAus resources nor would it be a cost drain for RAAus members. On the contrary, I believe that there is a case to show that an amalgamation would benefit RAAus members.

 

 

[jakej]

Andrew - re your post # 28. It was not meant to have "funny" from me on it - don't know how that happened, sorry.

 

 

[jetjr]

FV, im not against the idea though it might sound like it.

 

Your assuming theres going to be a single SMS, and aingle admin, sinle P149.

 

Id be surprised if this were the case.

 

From experience most of the benefits of mergers and almagamations the benefits go to the smaller body.

 

I am predicting heavy pushback from parochial members in RAA, already dissenting its current path and progress. They want the old AUF back ( but with todays benefits)

 

 

[flyvulcan]

The single admin, single SMS, single Part 149, single magazine, single office space rental/ownership etc. are the main areas where cost benefits will apply to both organisations. Any merger would be on the basis that there would be a resulting single entity with only one set of the aforementioned functions.

 

Establishing a clear and comprehensive list of objectives for the new entity would be critical. The parochial members of RAAus, and the SAAA for that matter, could provide their input to this list of objectives, should they feel very strongly about the future direction of their organisation. I personally am not particularly impressed with the current stated objectives for RAAus and feel that they need an overhaul. Indeed, the actual structure of RAAus is not quite right in my opinion. RAAus has regulatory functions relating to oversight in accordance with delegations from CASA. However, it also has an obligation to promote the past-time of recreational flying. These are two very different functions and in my opinion, RAAus has lost sight to a certain extent of the promotional aspect of rec. flying.

 

A merger of RAAus and the SAAA would allow a fresh look at the roles and objectives of a combined entity and with careful planning, a better structure could be established to meet the objectives of the new entity, thereby providing a better service to all members.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't expect it to be that easy and may not happen. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted or at least assessed competently.The problem of assisting members and having to apply rules down from CASA is a balancing act but we have a say in it. SAAA doesn't arc up as it has to keep the peace with CASA but they pretty much just cop it, whatever happens, like most who work in Aviation these days. There's a five to one ratio of RAAus to SAAA and there may be some dual membership. Pilots can be pretty vain and egoistic and you will no doubt hear we'll all be ruined if we get with that mob etc. I fear we could be somewhat worse off if all the hassles SAAA cop were universally applied, but still have a good look at it, has to be the obvious recomendation. Same goes for any other organisation that would like to share resources, but there has to be clarity of what outcomes would be likely to work like. Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

RAA has just gone through a massive navel gazing exercise and appears to be getting on track. It has some bridges to cross yet.

 

Not very long ago its main aim was to stay in business, some nice promotional things had to go the reduce costs.

 

Im just not sure whats in it for RAA except a hard time from sections of it membership and risk of "harmonised" rules from CASA.

 

There are sound reasons why RAA is allowed self maintenance as they have weight, stall speed and pax limits.

 

 

[facthunter]

Good points and I'm with you. The SAAA operate with a lot of paperwork. Inspection authorities expire every 2 years. etc. OUR leaders would be aware of the issues and the members views on more admin processes, but no harm in reminding them CONSTANTLY.. Nev

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Much of what Nev says could be applied to amalgamating with the GFA. Personally, I would like to see amalgamations take place but I would not like to pay more or suffer even more CASA interference.

 

I wonder if it would be possible to just share certain resources . Real estate would be the first , secretarial services such as answering the telephone could come next. These things alone would give a substantial saving and the shared premises would lead to easier but informal cooperation, without getting into the tricky areas that have been foreseen here.

 

Small operations like lawyers do this all the time.

 

 

[jetjr]

Yep SMALL businesses share all the time. Its based on the fact they cant justify costs individually.

 

RAA is not small, has 8K ?? members and now runs pretty lean. Id be unsure of reserve capacity there. They own their own building, albiet in ACT.

 

My main interest would be to present united front to push back on regulation and cost. Honestly I think it would make no difference to CASA but to see the opportunity to clean up messy regs and exemptions

 

A key saving and clear step forward for light aviation as a whole, would be combining both entities to run Ausfly......I thought SAAA wouldnt entertain this even.

 

Maybe a united entity of which each RAO is a member would be a good thing. Issues such as this type of amalgamation or sharing resources could be discussed.

 

 

[Nobody]

I am not opposed in principle to a merger but it only makes sense to do it if there are clear and well defined benefits to the members of both organizations. I am not sure that this is the case in this instance. A few points to consider:

 

1. There are a significant number of people who are members of both organizations. Therefore the combined organisation will have less total revenue than the sum of both at the moment. While there will be economies of scale will these be enough to compensate for the reduced membership income?
    
    
   
2. Even if the leadership were to agree there are some in both organizations who hold irrational grudges from times in the past. I feel that some SAAA members might let their membership lapse if there was a merger, especially if there is no regulatory burden in the way of them continuing to fly.
    
    
   
3. Will CASA actually take a combined organisation more seriously? Having two organisations to lobby possibly makes just as much noise as one slightly bigger one.
    
    
   
4. The organisations are quite different in nature. RAAus is based around the FTF while the SAAA is based around chapters and each chapter acts as an individual club, in most cases as a separate legal entity. Many of the chapters have substantial assets in their own right. How would these cultures be merged so that one wasn't just subsumed into the other?
    
    
   
5. The turmoil in SAAA at National Council level is disappointing but hopefully in time those that remain and the new NC members will be able to work together to give stability to the operation.
    
    
   

 

 

While a full merger may be a bridge too far a closer operating relationship might be a sensible approach. Homebuilding within RAAus seems to have almost died out. If the RAAus paperwork process was modified so that the SAAA paperwork was accepted without further inspection then an aircraft could be built under the SAAA and then flown under RAAus.

 

Nobody

 

 

[Nobody]

A key saving and clear step forward for light aviation as a whole, would be combining both entities to run Ausfly......I thought SAAA wouldnt entertain this even.

In effect the two organisations do run Ausfly together in a sense. There was very good representation from RAAus in the participants, exhibitors and the organisation. The member discount on entry was available to RAAus members and SAAA members. There was some RAAus delivered events on the speaking program.

 

The biggest risk/cost with running an event is the financial underwriting. There is always the risk that no-one turns up and you make a huge loss. To date this has been taken on by SAAA but I am sure that if RAAus were keen to underwrite....

 

 

[billwoodmason]

I don't know about this - to my knowledge RAA has never revealed that it took in administrative work for other organisations - if so why not? More secrets.

 

I think the members of RAA would be reluctant to amalgamate with SAAA as we have already seen other groups suddenly aligned with us ie microlights, powered parachutes etc. To add to that the 95.10 guys are filthy that the higher performance end of the spectrum (600kg) aircraft are included in the RAA fleet.

 

The heirarchy appears to be pushing for an increased weight limit for recreational aircraft but my gut feel is that the membership has no interest in a move such as this. I have a feeling that CASA would like us all bundled up into one easily managed group who willingly cow tow to their demands, similar to what happened to the union movement in the Hawke era where the number of union organisations was reduced to less than a handful.

 

For a self administered organisation we seem to have lost our autonomy since the likes of Middo have gone.

 

So why would we entertain amalgamating with SAAA. They seem to have internal problems of their own in spades.

 

 

[facthunter]

Bill ... There was never any secret about the RAAus helping out the SAAA with office services. It all went through the books. Just a sensible business arrangement..

 

Re the SAAA current position. They have more problems than we do and It has been happening for years now. The money came from the sale of the headquarters in Melbourne, as far as I recall.

 

The general Business plan of the RAAus is a fairly good one but all things can be improved. We should build more of our planes. This was done in the past, and I hope we can get back to it but with newer concepts.

 

SAAA don't get into flying so much. Their biggest problem is converting onto "rare" types. Obviously it's not easy to get people who are across a one off design. Building takes years and many don't fly much during the involved building process. Nev

 

 

[billwoodmason]

Facty, l am pleased it was above board and mentioned in despatches although I do not remember reading anything in our media about it. I have no objection to taking in administrative work if it makes our office more productive, but we got ourselves in hot water recently because we couldn't keep up with aircraft registrations etc and needed extra staff to comply. Were we taking in extra work then?.

 

I really liked the idea of Ausfly and applaud the cooperation between SAAA, RAAus & GA. I just think as far as amalgamation with anyone else it will make it easier for CASA to apply one set of rules for everybody meaning more tightly controlled regulations and policed compliance requirements for RAAus whose mantra has been self administration since inception. I think we would lose out.

 

 

[jakej]

Did RAAus actually contibute financially at all to Ausfly last year ?

 

 

[Nobody]

Did RAAus actually contibute financially at all to Ausfly last year ?

I don't believe so but I am not on the "inside" and so haven't seen the books.

 

 

[jakej]

IF they were supposed to be contributing but didn't then that's another nail - somebody please tell us this scenario did not happen.