USPA Membership Dues& Rating Fees going up?

[MakeItHappen 15]

What do you folks think about the plan for USPA to become a tandem/student booking agency?
It's on the GM agenda already. They made a presentation at the summer 2008 meeting too.
USPA gets a 20% cut of the retail price.
The company that wants to provide the backend has set this up for companies in Australia, but they contacted each DZ directly.
Their expansion to the US is attempting to use USPA as leverage. Instead of contacting each USPA GM directly, they get USPA to adopt the program and require GM membership in order to participate.
This means that a non-GM DZ that wishes to participate cannot.
This means that the USPA web site will preferentially promote participating DZs over the non-participating DZs.

Does anyone else think the TC logo, now present on the DZ listings, is ugly?

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[davelepka 4]

Quote

What do you folks think about the plan for USPA to become a tandem/student booking agency?
It's on the GM agenda already. They made a presentation at the summer 2008 meeting too.
USPA gets a 20% cut of the retail price.

Great, if they're getting 20% why do they need to raise the dues?

Are they planning on doing away with the GM fees, or is the DZ going to pay the fees plus 20% of the students the USPA brings in?

Why would any DZ go for this? Thanks to the general memebership the USPA has some deep pockets to make the initial investment in advertising and marketing that they could corner the business. I'm sure it would pay off for the USPA, but the DZ would suffer by losing 20% off the top of a good number of their students.

Doesn't this sound a little bit like Skyride? We'll book your tandems and students, but we get a generous cut for every one we do?

I guess Skyride used unsavory business practices to succeed, screwing over the DZ who chose not to participate, but according to this, the USPA wouldn't be too far off of that description.

Limiting the participation to GM DZs? What will that do to the business of non-GM DZs? Is that good for skydiving?

Charging GM fees so a DZ can lose 20% off their tandem and student business? I guess this is a good time to remind everyone that tandems and students are what pay the bills at the DZ. Fun jumpers generate the revenue that pays for the free beer and pizza that occasionally pops up (if your DZ doesn't serve free pizza or beer, it's becuase the fun jumps don't cover that cost).

Attempting to be one organization who has control over both the regulations, and the flow of business to the DZ? That doesn't sound good for anyone.

[klingeme 0]

Quote

>What value does it provide to the individual member?

It provides standards for training programs and ratings, so that you know (for example) that someone who has graduated an AFF program can pull on their own.

It provides a basic set of safety rules that are fairly common from DZ to DZ. (The details often differ, but in general you're not going to find a USPA DZ where people are pulling 100 feet above you while you're packing.)

Good to know that at a "Group Member" dropzone, clouds are never jumped through and minimum clearance from clouds is always followed where you are jumping. The "Group Member" DZ's I've jumped at thaought this as more of a "guidelive" than a rule.

Get rid of the GM Program or have them fund themselves and I'll consider restarting my membership.

Mark Klingelhoefer

[billvon 2,396]

>Good to know that at a "Group Member" dropzone, clouds are never jumped through . . .

I didn't say that. You may be confusing the USPA and the FAA. The FAA sets cloud clearance requirements, not USPA.

>Get rid of the GM Program or have them fund themselves and I'll
>consider restarting my membership.

Sounds like you'll be happier without it. (Which is great; you have that choice!)

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

>Get rid of the GM Program or have them fund themselves and I'll
>consider restarting my membership.

Sounds like you'll be happier without it. (Which is great; you have that choice!)

Bill von you are so misinformed on this.

The GM pledge states that the GM shall 'require' USPA membership of all licensed US skydivers and non-resident foreign nationals who do not have proof of membership in their national aeroclubs.
I know of no other company that has a requirement to have their customers belong to a 3rd party organization in order to do business with them.
There is no choice. They way this rule is 'violated, but not on purpose' is that DZs don't check memberships after an initial check.

Years ago there used to be a TMMI program that the GM dz got to cover 3rd party liability and a small medical insurance of people that were not USPA members and were on student status. That program was discontinued in the late 1990's. Prior to that, when that program was operational, many DZs entered into a contract with the local airport authority that required USPA GM membership. The airport authority wanted every jumper to be insured. The only way the non-USPA, student jumpers could be insured was through the TMMI program.

Once the TMMI program was discontinued, the DZOs may not have mentioned this to the airport authorities and they renewed their contracts with the airport, but they still had a clause to 'require' USPA membership. This requirement was driven by the insurance aspect.

Today, GM DZs can sell a TIM liability policy to the jumper, but it is not required by USPA. The medical coverage has dropped off to the wayside.

Next week USPA is proposing some sort of 'student membership'. This concept surfaced before in the late 1990's and was dubbed the 'tandem tax'. Essentially every student would be required to join USPA, if only for a short time period. There are two drivers in this scheme. One is the liability insurance and the other is to artificially inflate membership rosters. Think of it, according to USPA HQ the US has about 300,000 first time jumpers-mostly tandems each year. USPA would change its membership from 30K to ~300K overnight. The actual number would be less because the student membership is probably short term.

USPA cannot continue down this trade organization path and require that amateurs, plain ole' fun jumpers to be a member of a trade organization. The vast majority of USPA members are not instructors, are not competitors, are not DZOs and are not demo jumpers. Most jumpers are fun jumpers with no professional benefit derived from the sport. USPA demanding that the fun jumpers, aka amateurs, support the programs of professionals (instructors, competitors, demo jumpers, DZOs) is not going to succeed in the long run. USPA needs to decide if wants to be a trade organization or a membership organization. It looks to me that there are several people pushing for the trade organization. In the late 1990's, the USPA President mentioned in Parachutist that USPA had become a trade organization.

If USPA wants to go that route then the requirements for the non-professionals to be members is unjustified.
If I want to learn how to play golf, I do not need to be a member of the PGA.
If I want to play a fun round of golf with 4 associates, I do not have to be a member of the PGA.
If I want to learn how to ski, I don't have to join the nationally recognized ski association.
If I want to ski, for recreation with several friends, I do not have to join some national ski association.
etc etc etc.

It makes absolutely no sense to require a one-time tandem, AFF, SL or IAD jumper to become a member of USPA.
It makes absolutely no sense to require a weekend fun jumper to become a member of USPA.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[billvon 2,396]

>You seem like a pretty technical guy Bill, does this seem feasible to you?

Definitely. But I don't think you can replace face to face meetings. We do a LOT of teleconferences, and they're almost never as productive as regular meetings where you can see someone, gauge their reactions to things and interact as you do with people in a room (i.e. talk to the guy next to you without other people hearing, interrupt the speaker.) In addition, technical problems pop up in about 50% of them - and this is two communications companies setting them up. The technical challenges would be high indeed if you wanted to ensure everyone's system was working.

>e-Meetings could also allow the general membership to participate by joining
>in with out speaking privileges . . .

This would be nice, and would be doable even now. Streaming video can be played by most PC/browser combinations with the right plugins, and are almost bulletproof.

[DanG 1]

USPA doesn't require anyone to be a member, nor do they require dropzones to be Group Members.

Only if you choose to jump at a given DZ that has chosen to be a Group Member do you need to become a member yourself.

There are plenty on non-GM DZ's. You don't want to join USPA? Fine, jump at a non-GM DZ.

- Dan G

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

USPA doesn't require anyone to be a member, nor do they require dropzones to be Group Members.

Only if you choose to jump at a given DZ that has chosen to be a Group Member do you need to become a member yourself.

There are plenty on non-GM DZ's. You don't want to join USPA? Fine, jump at a non-GM DZ.

Consider this scenario:
Customer 1 comes to DZ A and says 'I'd like to do my first tandem jump.'
DZ A says 'ok fine sign right here'
They go do the tandem jump.

Customer 2 comes to DZ B and says 'I'd like to do my first tandem jump.'
DZ B says 'Well in order to do that you have to be a member of USPA. It's a temporary thing - blah, blah, blah.'
Customer 2 says 'You mean I cannot do my tandem jump unless I become a USPA member?'
DZ B says 'Yes that's right.'
Customer 2 says 'That's a tie-in purchase and it is illegal. You cannot force me to buy a product that I have no desire to have, nor do I need in order to purchase the first product. I can purchase the product from DZ A without this restriction. Your restriction harms competition.'

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[billvon 2,396]

>Customer 2 says 'That's a tie-in purchase and it is illegal. You cannot force me
>to buy a product that I have no desire to have, nor do I need in order to
>purchase the first product. I can purchase the product from DZ A without this
>restriction. Your restriction harms competition.'

And customer 2 goes to the non-USPA-DZ. Problem solved.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Consider this scenario:
Customer 1 comes to DZ A and says 'I'd like to do my first tandem jump.'
DZ A says 'ok fine sign right here'
They go do the tandem jump.

Customer 2 comes to DZ B and says 'I'd like to do my first tandem jump.'
DZ B says 'Well in order to do that you have to be a member of USPA. It's a temporary thing - blah, blah, blah.'
Customer 2 says 'You mean I cannot do my tandem jump unless I become a USPA member?'
DZ B says 'Yes that's right.'
Customer 2 says 'That's a tie-in purchase and it is illegal. You cannot force me to buy a product that I have no desire to have, nor do I need in order to purchase the first product. I can purchase the product from DZ A without this restriction. Your restriction harms competition.'

The legality of that as a "tie-in" purchase is debatable. I'm not a lawyer (and I don't think you are either) but as long as the requirement is advertised up front, I don't see why that would be a problem.

The same thing happens at USPA GM dropzones all the time right now. In order to jump at a USPA dropzone, up-jumpers need to be USPA members. Are you implying that this practice is illegal? Is this an example of a supposedly illegal "tie-in purchase"?

I'm not sure that I like the idea of tandem students becoming USPA members, but what I really don't like is the way you try to make everything regarding USPA out to be either illegal, immoral, or some kind of evil plot. If your arguments were more intellectually honest, and your motives were laid open, maybe more people would take what you have to say seriously and you'd actually get something done.

- Dan G

[peek 20]

Quote

So when does the BOD take one for the team, and give up their face-to-face meetings?

You know, there are a lot of different kinds of people on USPA's BOD. Not all of them are fond of having USPA members pay a lot for the meetings the BOD has in person.

Having any other kind of meeting besides in-person would not be "taking one for the team" for me, because I don't consider it an advantage over other means of communication.

About the only thing I can say I benefit from is a winter meeting held where it is warmer than the midwest. And we don't go to them to skydive. We are lucky if we see anything besides the walls of a boardroom.


To all:

I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread yet, but it has always been assumed that BOD meetings should be moved around the country so that more members can conveniently attend. If you do not agree, then by all means tell the BOD. It is not written in stone, but has been done that way for a while.

If you really want to see the USPA BOD work efficiently, contact your favorite committee Chair and ask them how much of their committee work gets done between the meetings, where much of it should be done.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

>Customer 2 says 'That's a tie-in purchase and it is illegal. You cannot force me
>to buy a product that I have no desire to have, nor do I need in order to
>purchase the first product. I can purchase the product from DZ A without this
>restriction. Your restriction harms competition.'

And customer 2 goes to the non-USPA-DZ. Problem solved.

QED

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[chriswelker 0]

What do you folks think about the plan for USPA to become a tandem/student booking agency?
It's on the GM agenda already. They made a presentation at the summer 2008 meeting too.
USPA gets a 20% cut of the retail price.
The company that wants to provide the backend has set this up for companies in Australia, but they contacted each DZ directly.
Their expansion to the US is attempting to use USPA as leverage. Instead of contacting each USPA GM directly, they get USPA to adopt the program and require GM membership in order to participate.

Quote

Too bad if your a GM DZO/DZM, you sould not be allowed to vote or even discuss the program, because you have a FINANCIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST in this matter!

The USPA Governaance Manual Section 1-2: Structure, Procedures, and Responsibilities. Section 1-2.3 Board of Directors section 4 states:

4. Identifying, reporting, preventing, and ELIMINATING FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ON THE BOARD.

a. A financial conflict of interest occurs when a board member compromises, or APPEARS to compromise, his or her duties in carrying out USPA policy because of an external relationship that directly or indirectly affects the FINANCIAL INTEREST OF THE BOARD MEMBER, ANY FAMILY MEMBER, OR ANY ASSOCIATED ENTITY.

b. Board members MAY NOT MAKE OR PARTICIPATE IN THE MAKING OF A DECISION OR VOTE ON ANY MATTER IF THERE EXISTS A FINANCIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

c. Intentional and/ or flagrant violations of this policy may be considered grounds for removal from the board in accordance with the constitution and bylaws.

So if you are GM DZO or DZM you have a FINANCIAL conflict of interest in this matter.

Who actually put this on the agenda? Was it a GM DZO? If it was then it should't be on the agenda.

USPA has rules for the BOD to follow, but they choose not to.

If you are a GM DZO or DZM you should not be allowed to be on the GM committee because you have a FINANCIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Chris

• Quote

[peek 20]

Quote

Quote

And customer 2 goes to the non-USPA-DZ. Problem solved.

QED

Aha, "that which was to be demonstrated", now I understand.

Do you suppose that customer will go to a non-GM DZ? Perhaps, but in some areas they are few and far between.

[chriswelker 0]

Just 2 days before the BOD meeting. If you think dues and fees should be raised for everyone except the Group members, let the BOD members know.

I don't mind a fee increase just as long as the Group Members pay their fair share, too.

Chris