RAAus/SAAA - Thoughts on a merger?

[DonRamsay]

What follows is my personal info and views and in no way is meant to represent the RAAus Boar, Staff or members.

 

Firstly a little history, not all of which I am an expert on so open to validation.

 

There was a time when there was enormous animosity between the RAAus Board (some key members) and the SAA hierarchy. Most of that had faded by 2012 when I got closer to what was going on. At NATFLY, Temora in 2012, the Board of RAAus invited the Board of the SAAA to have dinner together on the Friday evening. That went ahead and was very cordial. There had been a clean out of the old guard at SAAA and the new management group were happy to talk about amalgamation . . . one day. As it turned out RAAus was not a mature enough (read professional enough) organisation to merge with anyone . . . yet. Both sides could see value in the principle.

 

RAAus then went through a rebirth over the next few very troublesome years but came out of it looking much more evolved and professional. RAAus is getting close to the stage where it has systems and procedures that could support effective and efficient membership services to other aviation organisations like SAAA, GRA, HGFA, etc.

 

Merger becomes desirable when there is a meeting of aims and objectives - a common will. Economic benefits and improved political influence can come from a large single, well funded voice than from a smattering of amatuer poorly funded groups. In business you might enter a merger to achieve better shareholder value but in the case of RAAus and other RAOs I think the merger is done because you are a good fit and the economic and political benefits are a pleasant bonus.

 

I believe that RAAus would benefit from the skills and systems SAAA has in place with regard to home building. SAAA could benefit from the more evolved RAAus management structure and administrative and IT systems. It may not happen in 2016 but it should be the goal for both organisations to gain the attractive synergy that could flow from a single larger organisation.

 

A merged SAAA and RAAus would not be a simple thing. It would have to have CASA involved up to its eyeballs as I think there would need to be a complete rethinking of how aviation is divided and regulated. Instead of GA & RA we need to get it accepted that there is Commercial aviation and non-commercial aviation. The rules for each can be different so the fare paying public gets the benefit of direct CASA supervision and non commercial (recreational) aviation becomes fully self administering, much as RAAus is now. Why should the aircraft built and flown by SAAA members be regulated differently than the aircraft built and flown by RAAus members? Why on earth should CASA be involved in gliding?

 

Like I said, just my personal views.

 

 

[Bats]

I quite agree that any merger would have to include CASA involvement and the best scenario would be a move toward the system currently before Congress in the US where private aviation in aircraft of 6,000 pounds or less becomes substantially less regulated. Can I see CASA resisting the temptation to tinker and destroy the original intent? Not under the current regime but miracles have occurred before now I suppose.

 

I speak from early experience only, but I certainly wouldn't call the SAAA's MPC an advantage to RA Aus types and it proved an enormous distraction to their membership, even if it was really only as a workaround to retain maintenance privileges. My biggest concern is that whilst LSA and SAAA types have much in common, the original ultralights, the rag and tube types would gain little if anything in any realistic merger terms and this could very well precipitate a split amongst the current RA Aus membership.

 

Much to consider and some careful steps to be taken, but worthy of consideration I'd say.

 

 

[Yenn]

Fly Vulcan has posted on the SAAA website and replied to my post there. He will be putting an article in the SAAA magazine about amalgamation.

 

As far as I can see there are many in both camps who consider it would be beneficial, but it would be a very difficult thing to achieve.

 

With another post on the forum about the new constitution for RAAus I wonder how amalgamation could be achieved. If RAAus constitution is as bad as some say nobody would want to get into writing an amalgamation constitution.

 

It is going to take some time to collect all the required info sort out what problems there are and how to try to amalgamate.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

The new RAAus constitution when presented to the members for a vote will of course be exemplary. The new constitution allows for expansion of RAAus into any area of aviation and would easily accommodate a merger with SAAA. That would be the easiest aspect to manage.

 

Personally, I couldn't see a merger with SAAA or anyone else being a priority in the next 12 months.

 

 

[kasper]

The new RAAus constitution when presented to the members for a vote will of course be exemplary. The new constitution allows for expansion of RAAus into any area of aviation and would easily accommodate a merger with SAAA. That would be the easiest aspect to manage.Personally, I couldn't see a merger with SAAA or anyone else being a priority in the next 12 months.

Glad you said the constitution when presented to members ... because if you were talking about the current DRAFT before members its really an exemplar of HOW NOT TO DRAFT in several areas

eg

 

1. referencing in paragraphs other paragraphs that do not even exist.

 

2. having the only effective way of ceasing to be a member being owing money to the RAAus ... and being 1 day late on ANY payment to RAAus means you ceases being a member and MUST reapply FOR A NEW MEMBER NUMBER in WRITING

 

Few core practical issues really before even looking philosophical questions of why structure 'x' and board shaped 'y'

 

 

[facthunter]

Reply to #20.....I used to contribute a lot to that site. When I had the barney over fees and went to Chapter 20 Kyneton only, I can't access it. That's their right but a bit cut off the nose to spite the face. They have some good people but you may encounter a bit of resistance. Their constant state of turmoil is a worry. I've always said we should all hang together rather than be hung separately. Lest my position be unclear, I'm a firm supporter of the RAAus. As for the CASA licences(s) I've a Senior Commercial, Now defunct, and I saw first hand what they did to the Rec PL. I've also pushed AOPA as the ONLY organisation that can stand up to CASA. The rest have to be subservient to them or suffer recriminations, potentially. A less than satisfactory situation. Nev

 

 

[Nobody]

I've also pushed AOPA as the ONLY organisation that can stand up to CASA. The rest have to be subservient to them or suffer recriminations, potentially. A less than satisfactory situation. Nev

Nev this is an important point. RAAus can't get too upset at CASA. They cant write very nasty letters or resort to lawyers. They exemptions permissions and delegations will be removed or allowed to lapse. This gives CASA a significant advantage in pushing greater regulation into the bodies under its administration. SAAA is moving toward a similar situation with part 149 but at the moment SAAA really doesn't hold many CASA permissions itself. The permissions rest with individual APs.

 

AOPA has complete freedom to lobby CASA or politicians effectively. They have nothing (that CASA grants) to loose and so can go as hard or as soft as they want. This is also the situation in the USA. EAA have no "self governing" at all. As far as the regulations go they dont exist. All of licencing and regulation rests with the FAA. But if EAA don't like something they can have a chat to the FAA. If that fails every politician hears about it and there is nothing the FAA can take away to keep the EAA in check.

 

 

[ave8rr]

What about following the Brittish system of having a Light Aircraft Association (LAA)? That would allow light aircraft like Austers and Tiger Moths etc along with Eperimental to fly on a Permit to Fly system. seems to work over there. Just another idea to discuss.

 

 

[Downunder]

I can't see CASA agreeing to the join or amalgamation of any sporting bodies. It goes against the "divide and conquer"...err...dominate, mentality.

 

 

[Yenn]

I don't go along with the idea that Aopa are the only effective body. I found them to be a load of whingers about RAAus getting more than GA did. Have a look at their submission about CASA to the government enquiry. Cancelled my membership.

 

As far as amalgamation goes it appears that it will have to wait until there are more people pushing for it.

 

 

[Nobody]

The British "permit to fly" system is very restrictive for home builts. As I understand it they need an engineering approval for every design and changes from kits are discouraged.

 

Yenn, I didn't mean to imply that AOPA were effective, just that of all the organisations in Aviation in Australia they were best placed to have "full and frank" discussions with CASA because CASA have nothing to take away form AOPA. SAAA are at the moment relatively free to push CASA and have to an extent on medicals but as they move towards part 149 their ability to lobby will be diminished.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Imagine all those SAAA ppl falling over themselves when they find out that the RAA wants to have them put a MARAP application to maintain their planes

 

or when they are paying $200 a year to register their planes and their planes might not be re-registered due to a clerical error or paper work disappearing.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

Again, I think there is some confusion and misinterpretation of my suggestion. There is still discussion about imposing RAAus conditions on SAAA "roles and functions" and vice versa; there is still discussion about changing the regulatory framework. This is not my suggestion.

 

To be clear, I am proposing that the regulatory framework remain unchanged. I am proposing that the current roles and functions of the two organisations remain unchanged, but are simply incorporated into a single entity. I am proposing that all CASA privileges, approvals and delegations that apply to each individual organisation be applied (grandfathered) to the new single entity with no changes.

 

The challenge faced is how the new entity would administer their system and my proposal is that each "division" within the new entity (Ultralight/LSA/Experimental etc.) would be assigned their relevant area of responsibility. For example, the Experimental division would undertake all the roles/functions that the SAAA currently undertakes while the Ultralight and LSA divisions would undertake all the existing roles/functions that RAAus currently undertakes.

 

As an example, Experimental aircraft would continue to be eligible to be registered as VH or RAAus. Owners of VH registered aircraft would still be entitled to undertake maintenance IAW existing SAAA rules while owners of RAAus registered aircraft would continue to maintain theirs IAW the existing RAAus rules (they are both actually CASA rules but you get my point) etc.

 

Without changing any of the regulatory framework or rights/privileges/delegations etc, some of the functions could be rationalised, eg the Experimental division could also offer the RAAus experimental aircraft builders the benefit of the Technical Councillor system which would enhance the safety of those currently building RAAus registered experimental aircraft (which is a direct benefit for RAAus members right there), without changing any of the rights or privileges of the RAAus registered experimental aircraft owner/builder.

 

My suggestion is a straightforward one that contributors here are making more complex than it needs to be. Leave all roles/functions/privileges/approvals/delegations as they are but apply them to a single entity.

 

However, that single entity will provide cost savings and rationalisation of manpower resources through having a single set of administrative functions, a single office, a single Part 149 development program, a single SMS etc.

 

We could actually quantify the $ savings by reviewing the cost of the administrative functions to each organisation by consulting that annual financial reports for each individual organisation and determining what a combined admin system would cost and compare the two numbers. The SAAA's CEO and the RAAus TechMan could estimate the man hours that are being expended on developing individual Part 149 applications to determine the savings that could be made by developing a single Part 149. The same applies to administering two SMS's, magazines etc.

 

I suspect that an amalgamation could save a few hundred thousand $ between the two organisations each year which is a clear benefit to members of both organisations, yet all rights, privileges and services that are offered to members of both organisations would remain unchanged.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The RAA would just expense shift the SAAA, they would buy some new piece of kit or software and palm the expenses onto the SAAA. Its easy enough for the RAA to justify it as they would claim they didn't need the item prior to the merger. Then you have the issue of RAA not prioritizing the SAAA functions.

 

Once you wound the SAAA, its impossible for it to recover.

 

 

[Nobody]

Fly vulcan,

 

Under your proposal the economy of scale saving that you mention needs to be offset against the lost income from those who are currently members of both orgs as well as those who choose to leave the combined entity.

 

I dont think that the savings wont be anywhere near as much as you think. SAAA's total admin costs are only a "few hundred thousand" so to get the benefits you claim the admin function would have to be bundled into the RAAus system without any increase in cost. Is that really likely?

 

 

[flyvulcan]

The RAA would just expense shift the SAAA, they would buy some new piece of kit or software and palm the expenses onto the SAAA. Its easy enough for the RAA to justify it as they would claim they didn't need the item prior to the merger. Then you have the issue of RAA not prioritizing the SAAA functions.Once you wound the SAAA, its impossible for it to recover.

This post shows that my suggestion is being interpreted as RAAus taking over the SAAA. Again, this is not what I am proposing.

 

Let's for a second turn the above post 180 degrees.

 

"The SAAA would just expense shift RAAus, they would buy some new piece of kit or software and palm the expenses onto RAAus. Its easy enough for the SAAA to justify it as they would claim they didn't need the item prior to the merger. Then you have the issue of the SAAA not prioritizing the RAAus functions.

 

Once you wound RAAus, its impossible for it to recover."

 

Mmmmm.......

 

What I am suggesting is an amalgamation, not a takeover. I have already suggested that a Board be established that determines plans and policies for the organisation with those plans and policies being implemented by the CEO. The Board would consist of suitably qualified persons with relevant business, accounting, legal and industry experience (not just a mate of a mate, or someone that flies a cool aircraft and is passionate about their past-time but someone that can make the business succeed). The Board would consider all the objectives for the organisation when developing its plans and policies for the organisation. It would not look at it from an RAAus perspective or from an SAAA perspective, but from a single unified perspective that meets all the goals and objectives of a unified organisation with no bias towards what were once RAAus objectives or what were once SAAA objectives. Protection for the roles and objectives could be incorporated into the constitution in order to protect the interests of the relevant pre-amalgamation parties.

 

This discussion is very healthy in determining folks concerns about such an initiative. When I direct the attention of the SAAA National Council to this thread, if such an initiative is to be considered, this thread will give some good guidance on the areas that will need to be addressed to make an amalgamation workable. At the same time, it may make it clear that an amalgamation is not workable. However, it is interesting to see that personalities, bias, prejudice, misinterpretation/misunderstanding are all factors in how folks view such a proposal, rather than straight objectivity although there is a very good amount of objectivity and quality feedback evident. Keep it coming!

 

 

[flyvulcan]

Fly vulcan,Under your proposal the economy of scale saving that you mention needs to be offset against the lost income from those who are currently members of both orgs as well as those who choose to leave the combined entity.

 

I dont think that the savings wont be anywhere near as much as you think. SAAA's total admin costs are only a "few hundred thousand" so to get the benefits you claim the admin function would have to be bundled into the RAAus system without any increase in cost. Is that really likely?

I agree with all you have said.

 

There will be some lost income due to a number of folks who are currently members of both organisations, but I don't expect that figure is substantial. (I'm sure that pretty well all those members who currently hold two memberships would welcome an amalgamation but that is irrelevant in the cost case.) If any members chose to leave a combined entity then I suggest that they would have left the individual entity as well, so no real loss in income there.

 

A study would determine what additional admin support the existing RAAus admin staff would need to absorb the additional workload of the SAAA admin functions. I suspect that the equivalent of one additional staff member inserted into the existing RAAus admin infrastructure would possibly cover that workload (Amber used to do it all by herself in the former SAAA office). The cost of the sub-contracted admin function for the SAAA is certainly more than the cost for Amber, but the lease and maintenance cost for the current vacant SAAA office at Narromine could be saved and go into the general coffers of a new entity.

 

While the cost benefit to both organisations might end up being small (let's say less than $100k), a decent benefit will be gained in the manpower resource side of things.

 

Regardless, there are benefits to be gained, both financially and in manpower resources. Will the drawbacks of an amalgamation outweigh the benefits? That is what needs to be determined. Indeed, what are the real drawbacks, as distinct from the perceived drawbacks. As I see it, the effort required to make it happen is the only significant drawback. There would be no reduction in member services or rights and privileges of members.

 

 

[Bats]

I get what you're trying to say flyvulcan, bear in mind though that the discussion isn't purely about your view on what should happen. Sticking to that though, it really would highlight the absurdity of identical aircraft being registered under different rules in one organisation and having overlapping rights and obligations. For this reason then, what I raised was a new dispensation which would encompass all private aviation, something the US is trying very hard to move toward.

 

 

[flyvulcan]

I get what you're trying to say flyvulcan, bear in mind though that the discussion isn't purely about your view on what should happen. Sticking to that though, it really would highlight the absurdity of identical aircraft being registered under different rules in one organisation and having overlapping rights and obligations. For this reason then, what I raised was a new dispensation which would encompass all private aviation, something the US is trying very hard to move toward.

Again, I agree with you. I have been attempting to clarify my suggestion so that folks understand my intent and do not misinterpret it. It is simply a suggestion which is neither right nor wrong, actually it is probably both right and wrong at the same time. I would absolutely welcome any and all input and suggestions about whether an amalgamation would be good/bad for everyone and suggestions on how to do it would be most welcome.

 

Stimulating discussion about the topic is what it is about. Two years ago I was flabbergasted about what was happening within RAAus. I am now frustrated about what is happening at National Council level in the SAAA. I see it as time for a change within SAAA which fundamentally is a great organisation but is facing some issues. Do I see a way for the SAAA to do it better? Yes I do. One of the options available is to consider an amalgamation with RAAus. This thread is about exploring that option. Everyone's inputs and suggestions are welcome and encouraged.

 

BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with you that there could be regulatory change wrt private aviation in Australia and these are initiatives that an amalgamated entity could pursue, without sacrificing any of the entitlements that we now have.

 

 

[Ungrounded]

I'm also a member of both organisations. A very recent *new* member to both. As such I have no lengthy historical involvement with either. So what follows are some impressions from a somewhat bemused johnny-come-lately to all of this. These are just my *own* views from someone "outside", looking in. Views possibly flawed, likely inaccurate, but I'll share them anyway.

 

1. RAAus had it's roots in building/flying Ultralights (originally the Australian Ultralight Federation - AUF). But this is no more. The current focus is all about flight training and then flying very sexy, very expensive 600Kg factory LSA's. The recent rapid growth of RAAus seems likely attributable to a large influx of more senior gentlemen/ladies taking refuge from GA medicals. These people bring with them a GA view of the world.

 

2. RAAus looks on track to becoming a very professional organisation. But sadly somewhere along the road they seem to have stopped listening to what a large section of its members actually want. While still continuing to act in the best interests of "Recreational Aviation". Does anyone else see a problem here?

 

3. RAAus didn't seem much interested in builder assisting someone constructing an aircraft.

 

4. SAAA also had it's roots in building/flying Ultralights (originally the Ultralight Association of Australia - ULAA). But this is no more. The SAAA reputedly has a very professional focus on aircraft construction. But the aircraft today mostly seem to be very high end kits. The resulting aircraft are of course GA registered and often even more expensive, more capable and as a consequence heavier than the 600Kg LSA's.

 

5. The SAAA has in recent times has been so dysfunctional that even a simple e-mail to head office requesting information regarding the Builder Assist program went completely unanswered.

 

So with this overly simplistic view of the current state of play. It makes sense to this newbie to at least discuss amalgamation. The SAAA could look after building, construction and maintenance and the RAAus can look after flight training and aircraft registrations. Excepting this isn't really an amalgamation but rather a re-amalgamation. Given that the RAAus was originally a break-away group from the SAAA ("...so just where are the Judean Popular People's Front?". CASA playing the part of the Roman's of course :-).

 

Now here's something else that may (or may not) be of interest. I'm also a member of another Aircraft related organisation, the EAA. For the princely sum of $40 a year I think it was, they quite happily answer my technical questions. Recently the EAA even sent me an e-mail invitation to take part in an online survey. I can't believe that such a survey would have been created just for little 'ol me. So I'm assuming that quite a number of people reading this may have seen the same invitation. And the thrust of that survey? It was:- "Why are you a member of the EAA?" and... "Would you be interested in joining or establishing an EAA Chapter in Australia?".

 

So maybe there are other opportunities for mergers/amalgamations? Or perhaps just even greater impetus to consider local options?

 

Kind Regards All,

 

Steve.

 

 

[slb]

The SAAA's CEO and the RAAus TechMan could estimate the man hours that are being expended on developing individual Part 149 applications to determine the savings that could be made by developing a single Part 149

Isn't the RAAus TechMan on the SAAA board now? If so, I am not sure how the cost sharing would work.

 

So maybe there are other opportunities for mergers/amalgamations? Or perhaps just even greater impetus to consider local options?

RAAus have an MoU with both the SAAA and the HGFA but has anything been improved, or changed since they were signed? Both MoUs used to be on the website, but I can't find them since the website was updated. The RAAus/HGFA one is still on the HGFA website, so still valid as far as I can determine.

 

 

[facthunter]

You keep saying that about AOPA ,Yenn. But the fact is they are they only one who can do battle with the authority, (and they have frequently to all of our advantage) with out fear or favor. Any meetings they have put on, that I have attended have always been worthwhile with real value first hand information , so I will keep recommending them.

 

What information makes you write the last line? Have you had feedback? Nev

 

 

[jetjr]

If its going to be a simple sharing of resources, see if theres room in Canberra office for one more and move in. Other sharing will follow

 

Who knows both entities might learn something

 

 

[facthunter]

Wouldn't hurt either of them. Don't hold your breath. ft could sort it out. He's back on song again. Seems he doesn't like the RAAus. Nev

 

 

[Nobody]

If its going to be a simple sharing of resources, see if theres room in Canberra office for one more and move in. Other sharing will followWho knows both entities might learn something

This makes a lot of sense. Legally the two are separate but sharing office space leads to shared ideas and the good bits of each organisation can be seen and adopted by the other where is suits their operation.