USPA wants to increase your dues

[grimmie 173]

I think there are three sets of viewpoints that skydivers have towards USPA.

1. New jumpers or casual jumpers that just pay their dues, enjoy the magazine and continue to jump without getting in to the drama.

2. Jumpers that realize the importance of USPA and understand they get caught in difficult positions sometimes, and strive to contact the BOD and ask questions or offer to assist.

3. Jumpers that hate the USPA, usually because one of their friends had a run in, or they just hear things and over react.

The USPA gets caught in a difficult position as a membership organization. The board is made up of jumpers and DZOs. Some with their own agenda not always in line with other's ideals. The USPA is also highly respected by the FAA, our true "bosses" so to speak. When the Lodi incident happened there was a tremendous amount of pressure to do something by the USPA. If the just shrugged their shoulders and said oh well, that credibility we have with the FAA would diminish.

I have had serious disagreements with the board's actions and with certain directors over the years. As have most anyone involved in the business side of jumping.

Some of you want the USPA to be the enforcers of the Group Member program. I can see the crying when a DZO gets fined for violating something. Then everyone will want to string up the USPA because they took action. See my point? They walk a fine line.

Every single weekend there are skydivers that are just trying to get DZs closed with their antics. We also know that many DZOs are their worst enemies. I have seen USPA go out of their way and above and beyond helping certain DZOs dig themselves out of their own hole they made.

No membership organization is ever perfect. I think those of us that pay attention understand that. We have skydivers first, then DZOs and then the FAA to deal with. Now sprinkle in the gear manufacturers for another dose of drama. I think the USPA does a pretty good job at balancing it all out, even if I strongly disagree sometimes with their actions.

As for the dues raise, I don't think they are hiding anything nefarious, like a new Audi R8 for Ed Scott or something.

In this age of technology, it would be great to have live streaming to all of the members of each meeting.

One of the big issues we will all be facing as a membership is airport access. We should actually have three people in Government Relations.
As witnessed by so many airports and drop zones having issues, we all need to stay in the sky. To me that is one of the most important aspects of their mission. The NIMBY groups are gaining more and more momentum. When I had my own horrible dealings with ATC, they were actually somewhat afraid of the USPA getting involved, and I want that to continue.

The USPA isn't perfect, but it sure beats having to deal with the FAA on a daily basis.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

>How did lowering the standard benefit the membership?

I don't think it did. It was a poor decision. They've made a few of them. The decision to exclude any mention of BASE for years was another bad decision (fortunately reversed.)

And it is a perfect example of how the USPA doesn't care about it's dues paying members. Why? Because they can do whatever they want and skydivers cannot vote with their money.

Derek V

[tkhayes 126]

jlmiracle

Quote

a $10 increase in 30,000 membership dues is $300,000 in revenue. do the math.

Its $14.00 increase to renew, not $10.

***How about a decision by the Feds 20 years ago to NOT tax skydiving at a federal level that saved you at least 10% of the cost of every skydive you ever made?

Is that a question or a statement?

I am just trying to figure out if this dues increase is for the museum, Ed Scott wanting a raise or what. I read the minutes and the agenda and it doesn't really give me the information I'm looking for. What are they hiding?

It was a mathematical example, not a financial analysis of the reasons for a membership price increase - lighten the fuck up

And NONE is going to the museum. USPA has given a grand total of something like $25K to the museum and the museum exists as a separate institution, financially, corporately, and wholly separate from USPA.

[faulknerwn 36]

As a rating-holder skydiver I pay $100 every year (before this) for membership fees. That's annoying. I would happily pay $10 less or x$ less for not getting a paper magazine. I generally skim through them in 10 minutes and its mostly boring boogie articles - I would happily pay less to get it electronically or not at all. Give us that option - it will save on printing costs.

What were the legal fees with the NAA? Were they necessary? Living in a red state that constantly passes unconstitutional laws - I recognize that some legal costs may not be necessary. Ed Scott's article does not mention why we are in a legal battle with the NAA and FAI.

I bet if you gave the membership an option to get an online magazine for a reduced cost ($10-$15 less in dues) 75% would take it. That would reduce costs tremendously. Expecting people to opt out of receiving the magazine without any motivation is pretty pointless.

[tkhayes 126]

Quote

As a rating-holder skydiver I pay $100 every year...

Which is a mere pittance insofar as any sort of 'professional' goes, in any industry, or similar sporting organization. No one is demanding that anyone becomes a professional skydiver.

I already gave the best example of why your membership dues are worth every cent you will pay for the rest of your life. Keeping the govt off our backs.

[billvon 2,400]

>And it is a perfect example of how the USPA doesn't care about it's dues paying members.

?? Making mistakes means you don't care? I've made plenty of mistakes over my time as a skydiver; I suspect you have too.

[billvon 2,400]

>I bet if you gave the membership an option to get an online magazine for a reduced cost
>($10-$15 less in dues) 75% would take it.

Would probably be less savings than that; most of the costs of such a magazine aren't the costs involved in printing each copy, but in the costs of doing the run to begin with. Would you do it if it saved you $3?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Making mistakes means you don't care?

No, putting DZ's interests ahead of member's interests and then not fixing it after 16 means means they do not care. Keeping membership mandatory means they do not have to care.

Derek V

[Jampi612 0]

"Overhead costs -- postage, printing, travel, employee health care, outside services and the rest"

"If the board decides to increase dues, we'll provide plenty of notice and full accounting of the decision"

QUESTION:

1. Travel... going from 2 to 3 BOD meetings a years raised the cost by how much? How much are the total travel costs per year (all expense reports taken into account) for the USPA? 10,20,30...% of the total monies intake?

2. What does "if the board decides" and "we'll provide plenty of notice and full accounting of the decision" mean? break down of costs and their respective increases will be shown somewhere?

i keep minimum information on my profile. email is my communication preference.

[billvon 2,400]

>No, putting DZ's interests ahead of member's interests and then not fixing it after 16
>means means they do not care.

OK. I haven't seen them do that, but to each their own.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

>No, putting DZ's interests ahead of member's interests and then not fixing it after 16
>means means they do not care.

OK. I haven't seen them do that, but to each their own.

Yes you have, when they lowered the affi course standards 16 years ago.

Derek V

[gowlerk 1,912]

Quote

Yes you have, when they lowered the affi course standards 16 years ago.

16 years is more than enough time to assess the results. If the standard has not been raised since, and there is no outcry to do so, I'm going to have to assume their decision was correct.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[rmarshall234 13]

grimmie

The USPA isn't perfect, but it sure beats having to deal with the FAA on a daily basis.

This is so true! And, such an important point.....


At least the USPA is not some huge mindless, bureaucratic entity, with a heavy hand of enforcement. Populated by arrogant, mostly under-informed inspectors, with ironclad job security. Where it literally takes an act of congress, to change something (Basic Medical).

(Ok, ok....that is a gross generalization and possibly unfair, but that does seem to be the general consensus and often how it feels.)

Having spent a lot of time involved with both the USPA and the FAA, I am amazed at how fortunate skydivers are to still be "Self Regulated".

Say what you want about the USPA and the cost of membership, but trust me/us on this, the alternative is way, way worse.

[yoink 321]

rmarshall234

Having spent a lot of time involved with both the USPA and the FAA, I am amazed at how fortunate skydivers are to still be "Self Regulated".

Particularly given how poor we seem to be at it sometimes...

[Pat007 0]

We're in a sport where we think nothing of repeatedly spending several hundred dollars for a day of recreation, or laying out $400+ on a jumpsuit that is essentially a pair of coveralls. I find it interesting that we grumble about a modest increase in membership dues to an organization that tries to keep us as safe as possible and works to keep us self-regulated.

My Dad used to ask me if someone jumped off a bridge would I do that too? No, but if they jumped out of an airplane, that's a different question...

[kuai43 7]

Pat007

We're in a sport where we think nothing of repeatedly spending several hundred dollars for a day of recreation, or laying out $400+ on a jumpsuit that is essentially a pair of coveralls. I find it interesting that we grumble about a modest increase in membership dues to an organization that tries to keep us as safe as possible and works to keep us self-regulated.

This. This should end the discussion.
Of course, there should be open books and oversight, but.. this.

Every fight is a food fight if you're a cannibal

Goodness is something to be chosen. When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man. - Anthony Burgess

[faulknerwn 36]

Pat007

We're in a sport where we think nothing of repeatedly spending several hundred dollars for a day of recreation, or laying out $400+ on a jumpsuit that is essentially a pair of coveralls. I find it interesting that we grumble about a modest increase in membership dues to an organization that tries to keep us as safe as possible and works to keep us self-regulated.

There are people like that but there are also a lot of poorer people scraping up the money just to make a few jumps a month. I know several people at my dz who spent $500-$1000 for their first rig (old and not freefly friendly but safe) I have rigs that I spent $300 or less on for main/reserve/container. There are lots of people who don't have a lot of money but who still love the sport.

[peek 20]

OK, I have been given some figures on how your dues are spent, in particular, Parachutist magazine.

About 25% of a domestic member's dues goes to providing a mailed paper copy of Parachutist. This includes payments to contributors ($10,000 per year) and to photographers ($14,000 per year). This doe not include staff salaries and overhead.

(Keep in mind that if an online version of Parachutist exists, that some of the costs will remain if the online version is identical to the paper version.)

So I would think that the question to members would be, would you be willing to forego a paper copy of Parachutist to help keep the costs of your dues from increasing?

[yoink 321]

Is it an all or nothing deal?


Would you still be able to get the same printing price for the half of the membership who decided they wanted to keep the magazine even if the other half opted out?

[peek 20]

yoink

Is it an all or nothing deal? Would you still be able to get the same printing price for the half of the membership who decided they wanted to keep the magazine even if the other half opted out?

I don't know for sure, but I think they would need to decide one way or another.

[cpoxon 0]

peek

OK, I have been given some figures on how your dues are spent, in particular, Parachutist magazine.

About 25% of a domestic member's dues goes to providing a mailed paper copy of Parachutist. This includes payments to contributors ($10,000 per year) and to photographers ($14,000 per year). This doe not include staff salaries and overhead.

(Keep in mind that if an online version of Parachutist exists, that some of the costs will remain if the online version is identical to the paper version.)

So I would think that the question to members would be, would you be willing to forego a paper copy of Parachutist to help keep the costs of your dues from increasing?

Presumably the advertisements in Parachutist subsidise its production? Would the advertisers be happy to pay the same rates for advertising if it was purely online?

Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live

[peek 20]

cpoxon

Presumably the advertisements in Parachutist subsidise its production? Would the advertisers be happy to pay the same rates for advertising if it was purely online?

Good questions. I don't know.

[Jampi612 0]

Thanks Gary. We need more of this...

i keep minimum information on my profile. email is my communication preference.

[tkhayes 126]

I am not convinced that online versions of anything will save a considerable amount of money. Online design has its own requirements and people to do the work. This is not Mission Impossible or Minority Report. real people have to compile the same data into real platforms and code that actually works and is manageable online

It has to be easy to use, legible, easy to maneuver and manipulate. If you think a PDF would be acceptable, i think you would be sadly mistaken that readers would even bother.

web platforms, the software required to do it right (i.e. the NY Times) costs a shit ton of money and skills to use it well.

[peek 20]

tkhayes

I am not convinced that online versions of anything will save a considerable amount of money. Online design has its own requirements and people to do the work. This is not Mission Impossible or Minority Report. real people have to compile the same data into real platforms and code that actually works and is manageable online

It has to be easy to use, legible, easy to maneuver and manipulate. If you think a PDF would be acceptable, i think you would be sadly mistaken that readers would even bother.

web platforms, the software required to do it right (i.e. the NY Times) costs a shit ton of money and skills to use it well.

I agree, a PDF file would not cut it. It is my understanding that the printing, paper, and mailing is a large part of the cost. I think that is where the savings would be. This would take some studying with the real and entire figures, which I don't have.