USPA Membership Dues& Rating Fees going up?

[billvon 2,400]

>Bill if you spend more than you take in where does the difference come from.?

?? Nowhere. I am then in debt. If I was spending other people's money to provide them a service, I would be doing the best possible job if I gave them the best service possible using all the money they gave me. If I kept some of the money and invested it, rather than using it to perform that service, I wouldn't be doing as good a job.

>I have not mentioned anthing about investing or mutual funds so please try your
>best to stay on topic. You should be setting a better example as a mod.

I am sorry if you are upset that I'm not helping you with your USPA bash, but I see no reason to.

[peek 20]

Quote

>So if something keeps loosing money year after year your o. k. with that?

Uh, yes. They SHOULD lose money.

Do you suppose AOPA loses money?

I'm kinda thinkin' that they make enough profit to have some in reserve for the next new government related issue they need to deal with (on behalf of pilots like you and me).

[billvon 2,400]

>I'm kinda thinkin' that they make enough profit to have some in reserve for
>the next new government related issue they need to deal with (on behalf of pilots
>like you and me).

OK. So their goal is to retain money one year so they can "lose" it the next year on some new government related issue.

Let's take an example. Let's say they have half a million saved up, and they blow it all defeating the latest attempt to privatize ATC. So that's half a million they lost in a year. Did they do a good job or a bad job for pilots like you and me?

Just to be clear, I don't think USPA should run a deficit, nor should they aim for surpluses. They also shouldn't "lose" money as in misplace it. They should, however, spend the money on the programs they plan to implement. If they want to pay into a fund for emergencies, that's OK too - as long as the plan is to actually use it in those emergencies, rather than build up investment capital. However, if said emergencies don't come along, I would hope they'd eventually take that surplus and use it to reduce dues instead of increasing their investments.

[chriswelker 0]

Just to be clear, I don't think USPA should run a deficit, nor should they aim for surpluses. They also shouldn't "lose" money as in misplace it. They should, however, spend the money on the programs they plan to implement. If they want to pay into a fund for emergencies, that's OK too - as long as the plan is to actually use it in those emergencies, rather than build up investment capital. However, if said emergencies don't come along, I would hope they'd eventually take that surplus and use it to reduce dues instead of increasing their investments.

Quote

I agree with you that USPA should spend the funds, but they should not over spend.

Bill, my point is very simple. If our USPA BOD and HQ exec. Dir. can't make it on the funds we are giving them now, they ain't gonna make it on more. USPA does not have an income problem, it has a spending problem.

USPA spent 30k plus on sport promotion last year which netted 270 new members. 270 x $51 equals $13770 gross revenue. USPA lost at least $16230 on this one transaction alone. What do you think about this, Bill? When do we say stop to this type of wasting money?


Chris

• Quote

[PhreeZone 15]

Quote

USPA spent 30k plus on sport promotion last year which netted 270 new members. 270 x $51 equals $13770 gross revenue. USPA lost at least $16230 on this one transaction alone. What do you think about this, Bill? When do we say stop to this type of wasting money?

What is the long term income from those people? You are looking at it from a 1 year level but if the USPA spent the $30k and it results in 300 members that are around for 4-5 years each that is $60000+ in income from those members. Getting a 2:1 return on the investment in 4 years is generally considered a really good investment.

Does the USPA need to look at trimmings its budget? Yes, but that does not mean they should eliminate programs just to save a dollar or two. As pointed out our dues are cheaper now then ever when accounted for inflation. They are stretching that ever thinning dollar further and further to keep from raising the dues. USPA does need to move away from using returns on investments as part of its annual budget, that is a huge issue when the markets are down.

Everyone likes to point out that AOPA has low dues and has a stronger lobby then the USPA does. AOPA makes the VAST majority of its money outside dues, they run several publications and expos that make up income of $35 million annually or 2/3's of their income. USPA just does not have those resources coming in unless you can think of another market for the USPA to take over and make money from.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 2,400]

>If our USPA BOD and HQ exec. Dir. can't make it on the funds we are giving
>them now, they ain't gonna make it on more.

Why not? Let's say they spend the money, increase the automation on their website and get rid of two staffers as a result. Think that will help them get by on less money?

>USPA spent 30k plus on sport promotion last year which netted 270 new
>members. 270 x $51 equals $13770 gross revenue.

Let's say the average new member lasts 5 years. That's around $70K. I figure that's not bad for a $30K expenditure.

[chriswelker 0]

What is the long term income from those people? You are looking at it from a 1 year level but if the USPA spent the $30k and it results in 300 members that are around for 4-5 years each that is $60000+ in income from those members. Getting a 2:1 return on the investment in 4 years is generally considered a really good investment.

Quote

Lets look at the membership numbers since 2000.
2000 34,217
2001 34,322
2002 33,644
2003 30,618
2004 32,057
2005 31,276
2006 30,618
2007 31,264
2008 31,534

Your assumption would be correct if not for the fact that we are losing members just almost as fast as we are adding them.The numbers are what they are.5300 people didn't renew their USPA membership in 2008. That fact should be of concerne to all.We get them through the door but we can't hold on to them. I wonder why.

More focus needs to be on the retention of current members. Just like in any business, you spend more to attract a new customer than you do to retain an existing one.This is just one way USPA could cut costs and provide better service.

Chris

• Quote

[chriswelker 0]

Does the USPA need to look at trimmings its budget? Yes, but that does not mean they should eliminate programs just to save a dollar or two. As pointed out our dues are cheaper now then ever when accounted for inflation. They are stretching that ever thinning dollar further and further to keep from raising the dues.

Quote

Are you aware of the fact that there is no consideration to raise the dues on the Group Members? The reason given is "the group members have already paid their dues for the year", WTF? Are you kidding me? Send them a bill for their dues increase how hard is that.

The next 2 BOD meetings will cost USPA o total of around 50K.You ok with that?

Don't get me wrong. I understand that prices increase stuff goes up.The issue I have with dues increase is that it isn't shared by all and there are a few programs that don't carry their load; however I will probably be paying for them none the less.

Chris

• Quote

[Krip 2]

Quote

Everyone likes to point out that AOPA has low dues and has a stronger lobby then the USPA does. AOPA makes the VAST majority of its money outside dues, they run several publications and expos that make up income of $35 million annually or 2/3's of their income. USPA just does not have those resources coming in unless you can think of another market for the USPA to take over and make money from.

USPA could partner with Red Bull or other corporate sponsor and rent them the USPA name for a significant amount of cash.

How much is the Red Bull United states parachute association worth? Or the Red Bull skydiving museum?

R.I.P

[billvon 2,400]

>Are you aware of the fact that there is no consideration to raise the
>dues on the Group Members?

As a board member just posted his consideration of it, that's provably wrong.

>The reason given is "the group members have already paid their dues
> for the year", WTF? Are you kidding me? Send them a bill for their dues
>increase how hard is that.

Uh huh. And if USPA had you pay $51 for membership, then sent you another bill for $10 - would you pay it?

>The next 2 BOD meetings will cost USPA o total of around 50K.You ok
>with that?

I would be 100% willing to let you plan the next two BOD meetings and save USPA all that money. I'll even help you do it.

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

The next 2 BOD meetings will cost USPA o total of around 50K.You ok with that?

Is this a true number and if so, Why does it cost 25k a meeting. What are they doing in these meeting that it costs 25k. Hiring strippers or something. How can a meeting cost 25k???????

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[Mr17Hz 1]

There are 8 National Directors, and 14 Regional Directors. Plus, the Executive Director, and perhaps one other member from staff to help in the execution of everything... that's 24 people.

It takes a lot of real cash to get 24 people from all over the country into the same place at the same.

Airfare, airport parking, hotel stays, food, transportation, tolls, mileage, conference room rental... Even without actually paying the directors any money for their time, a lot goes into expenses.

Matt Christenson

[email protected]
http://www.RealDropzone.com - A new breed of dropzone manifest software.

[diablopilot 2]

There is the airfare to get the BOD and all staffers to the location of the meeting. That's between 35 and 40 people. Say they get a great deal on airfare at about $350 per round trip.

$14,000

Accommodations at the Silver Legacy were being priced at $90 a night for the PIA conference, the USPA may have got a slightly better deal.

$3600

Then there is the convention center/meeting hall/rooms and I have no idea what that would cost, so for 3 days I'll guess $1500, the transport to and from the airport $1000 and the very small amount that they get for meals call it $500 total.

At the bare bones and some guessing it's already over $20,000.

I think some costs could be cut from this however.....I have found much better rates for accommodations when I attended the last two BOD meetings, and I have done so this time as well.

I can see the desire to co-locate with the PIA this time but there will be 3 more meetings before the PIA again, and I think hat there would be more than a couple DZ's that should be willing to host the meetings for free.... or there could be made an effort to combine the meetings with other events to increase exposure and participation.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[DSE 3]

rooms are more like 750.00 per day plus catering (and catering is required) at say....10 urns of coffee per, 70.00 per urn...
Planning/producing meetings adds up.
BTW, the AAA rate for the Silver Legacy was only 55.00 a night. Same rooms, half the cost.

[hallux 0]

I say the USPA shoud take our dues and bet them at the roulette wheel. If they win we get our money back. I they lose the USPA shuts down for a year or the BOD is forced to panhandle to pay for our tightly censored magazine.

[fincher 0]

is that a pic of DSE in a wingsuit or is it a pterodactyl?

i'll huff and I'll puff and I'll burn your packing tent down

[ozzy13 0]

Not sure why USPA member have to pay for Board members to go have fun in Reno? Shit if I would of know that I get all expenses paid for , I would have ran.

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[diablopilot 2]

I think that covering the basic costs of the BOD members attendance is acceptable. It IS a volunteer position after all. However in lean times like we are in, every inch of fat bears looking at and cutting where possible.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

I think that covering the basic costs of the BOD members attendance is acceptable. It IS a volunteer position after all. However in lean times like we are in, every inch of fat bears looking at and cutting where possible.

I don't see a meeting costing 25k being a volunteer thing. I think that's one of the reasons why we are in trouble financially. Let them stay at a motel 8 or something if its such a volunteer thing. Im not saying that they should pay for all their expenses but gee whiz that's a lot of money for a bunch of people to get nothing done.

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[billvon 2,400]

>Let them stay at a motel 8 or something if its such a volunteer thing.

I'm sure they would welcome your assistance with travel accommodations.

One of the reasons that USPA doesn't work as well as it might is contained in the above sentence. "Let them . . ." They are us. We decide who's on the BOD, and they come from the ranks of the people in the skydiving world.

A while back we wanted a change made to the BSR's. We talked about it on the web. Then we did something that may amaze people here - we went to a meeting and talked to the people there about it. Actually got a bunch of people together, got on an airplane, flew there, got a hotel room and spent several days talking to the various committees about what we wanted.

And you know what? The change happened. The Group Membership committee suggested a different (actually more effective) way of making the change and we agreed to it. Problem solved.

So if the cost of BOD meetings bugs you, do something about it. Call around Reno to find a better rate. Call the hotel to make sure they'll accommodate all those people and make sure they will bus them to the meeting. (Just so someone doesn't bitch about paying for taxis, of course.) Then call USPA headquarters and tell them about the deal you got. Send them the paperwork.

That way, the change you want might actually happen.

[popsjumper 2]

I knew of a hotel in Roy, NM that, in 1984, charged only $4/night. Think they would attend meetings there?
If you're gonna go, go BIG.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[davelepka 4]

Quote

So if the cost of BOD meetings bugs you, do something about it.

It's been mentioned before, but what about an 'e-meeting'. There are several services that provide online meeting capability.

I am 100% sure that any BOD member who is not equipped for such a meeting has a jumper local to them who would be willing to handle the tech end of things for them.

Even if you had to buy one or two board members new computers, or hook up a high-speed line or two, you still come in way under $25k for the fisrt meeting, and once those things are in place, the savings for future meetings would only multiply. Once those members are off the board, cancel the DSL, and reposes the computer.

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

[PhreeZone 15]

This is extremely feasible and very cost efficient. There is a reason that most companies have implemented similar applications since it comes in so much cheaper then face to face meetings. There are still some things that will only be able to be addressed during large all weekend committee meetings but it would be nice to see some cost savings by moving towards e-meetings.

e-Meetings could also allow the general membership to participate by joining in with out speaking privileges unless the chairperson of the call activates their line for speaking privileges.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[davelepka 4]

Quote

e-Meetings could also allow the general membership to participate by joining in with out speaking privileges unless the chairperson of the call activates their line for speaking privileges.

I hadn't even thought of that aspect. You always hear about the dismal turnout of the general membership at the meetings, but this would certainly take care of that. I recall the last meeting when a good number of Dz.com folks went down, and I know that good number of people were eagerly following the updates and videos that were posted about the proceedings.

Additionally, this would allow the board members more time at home with their families, and less time away from their 'day jobs'.

Overall, did these people run for a seat because they were really concerned about the membership? If so, then this is a no-brainer. If this was a business, and cost of this meeting came out of the owners pocket, you can bet that he or she would be all for anything that could save tens of thousands of dollars.

Here's an example - the video dept where I jump is run separate from the DZ. The guy who runs it makes money off of every video shot at the DZ. Of course he makes the most on the videos that he personally shoots (and gets paid to make a jump to boot).

Anyway, there are times where the video work is slow, and he'll pull himself from the rotation and let the video staff take the jumps he would have done. He still makes a few bucks on our work, and it keeps the video staff in the air.

It's clearly more beneficial for him to make the jumps himself, but for the good of the overall video dept., he 'takes one for the team' and sits out a few rounds.

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

[Remster 24]

e-meeting, Live_Meeting, etc, are great tools for ongoing discussions. They do not replace face time however. 1 once a year meeting is, IMO, quite adequate in an organization that is spread out geographically like this.

Face to face meetings is part of the cost of doing business. Yes, its not cheap, but it does make things happen.

Maybe there are cheaper hotels, cheaper flights, but remember you are talking about people who donate their time to run the association. While its not necesserally a perk, making them travel to a hold and stay in a $4 a night hotel (I'd like to see that one! lol) would definitely be a detterent!

Remster