The USPA should raise membership prices (read post first)

[Mr17Hz 1]

I've noticed a lot of conversations lately about how membership groups outside of the US are charging considerably more than the USPA to provide the same type of services.

Most people take the attitude that higher rates are bad - I'm not so sure I agree.

*IF* a governing organization is spending money wisely - every dollar spent is well spent.

Consider that everyone in the sport pays an extra $20 for membership next year:

That’s just a single jump, but the USPA has to potential to not only prevent those prices from going up (have you read about the proposed $0.70 per gallon tax increase?) and also lower those prices by driving new tandem students to the sport, and encourage more people to enter the sport as fun jumpers.

If the USPA collects $20 extra from each member = that's around $600,000/yr. Now consider the economical impact that $600,000.00 worth of resources could have on the entire Skydiving community as a whole.

If the USPA could prevent jump tickets from going up in price by just $1 each on average next year – all that means is that each member would need to make an average of 20 jumps before the entire US skydiving economy would benefit.

I have heard a lot of people complain about the level of output that has been received by the USPA, I can’t say that I disagree – but I have noticed that everyone in the USPA seems to talk about doing everything they can to avoid membership prices. Why, I wonder?

I’m much more concerned about seeing output than I am saving $20 a year.

Matt Christenson

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

[caspar 0]

technically whether they "should" or not is always going to be discussed. the way i see it is they completely "could" because i guess they hold a monopoly, and as the states is the leader in skydiving, any substitutes (other DZs) are going to be weak comparisons when including flight costs etc. whats stopping them at the end of the day?

"When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading."

[wmw999 2,116]

If the money were definitely to be specifically spent for that, it might well be a good chunk.

But with more money comes more needs. The oversight costs more money, the additional lobbying costs more money, etc. etc. etc.

Not that I'm against it. But as members we don't really have ultimate control over how it's spent. The BOD sets that, and we keep electing the same folks in with a minimal number of votes each year.

Sounds kind of like Congress, doesn't it?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[quade 3]

Quote

If the USPA collects $20 extra from each member = that's around $600,000/yr. Now consider the economical impact that $600,000.00 worth of resources could have on the entire Skydiving community as a whole.

Ok. I just considered it.

Huh?

I belong to the USPA for a couple of reasons;

1) The drop zone I like to jump at is a USPA Group Member drop zone and requires it.
2) The USPA is a liason organization between the skydiving community and the FAA. They lobby on our behalf.
3) I used to like to jump in competitions.

That's pretty much it.

In case #1; I don't want to pay ANY money, but I have to, so there ya go.

In case #2; They're doing just fine with the money they already have. More money isn't the solution to people whacking into the ground, so again, I don't want to give them any more money than I already do.

In case 3; If the USPA would ever actually get serious about being a body that governs and keeps records of competitions rather than one that simply makes rules and certifies judges. To some this may seem like a trival difference, but . . . to me it's an important difference. Could the USPA use a little more money in this area? Sure. Should the non-competing members pay for it? No way!

So, lemme ask YOU. What do YOU think the USPA needs an extra $600,000 for?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If the USPA collects $20 extra from each member = that's around $600,000/yr. Now consider the economical impact that $600,000.00 worth of resources could have on the entire Skydiving community as a whole.

If the USPA could prevent jump tickets from going up in price by just $1 each on average next year – all that means is that each member would need to make an average of 20 jumps before the entire US skydiving economy would benefit.

How many of the 30k members are Life members? That's the first if that seems suspect.

And the second one is entirely pie in the sky. How does 400,000 stop the price of oil? And if all spent on lobbying, would it make a difference in the proposed aviation tax change or landings fees? Or just a small contribution to the GA effort?

Spending on recruiting might pay better, but that sort of money gets you only a handful of additional staff to promote over 200 businesses.

Any such increase in fees with a nebulous goal should be strongly questioned.

[RandomLemming 0]

To be fair, the main reason that the BPA is raising their prices is because their costs went up. The insurance premiums got hiked and they are passing that cost onto their members (don't really see what other option they have).

Having said that, I'd gladly pay the BPA more money if I knew how to get them to lobby things like airlines on behalf of their members.

[Mr17Hz 1]

Quote

How many of the 30k members are Life members? That's the first if that seems suspect.

I don't know - but this question has an expiration date to it, as there are new members each year.

Quote

And the second one is entirely pie in the sky. How does 400,000 stop the price of oil? And if all spent on lobbying, would it make a difference in the proposed aviation tax change or landings fees? Or just a small contribution to the GA effort?

You're clearly not paying any attention to political issues. I never once mentioned the price of oil. The new FAA fee plan would increase tax prices on turbine aircraft fuel in efforts to fund their new air traffic control systems - a variety of homeland security 'enhancements' - increase the cost to pilots for maintaining licensing - and all sorts of other increases that are "targeted" at big airliners but could cripple skydiving in the US if the bills are not changed to accomidate non-transportation flights.

Quote

Spending on recruiting might pay better, but that sort of money gets you only a handful of additional staff to promote over 200 businesses.

How many staff do you think it would take to setup programs to sent each new tandem passenger a complementary introductory Parachutist magazine, hold marketing related group meetings more often than once-per-year, add value to those meetings causing more dropzone owners to actually show up, or gain national publicity through press releases?

Quote

Any such increase in fees with a nebulous goal should be strongly questioned.

The USPA is a not-for-profit organization - there are not shareholders that take the extra cash available and pocket the money at the end of the year. I'm sure there are plenty of things they could do that would improve the overall economy in this vertical industry - if they were not always concerned about not spending money.

This post wasn't targeted at any specific issue - I was really more interested in hearing about what people felt in general - because each time a specific issue comes up - the idea of raising member prices seems to be avoided.

Matt Christenson

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

[Eule 0]

Quote

I have heard a lot of people complain about the level of output that has been received by the USPA, I can’t say that I disagree – but I have noticed that everyone in the USPA seems to talk about doing everything they can to avoid membership prices. Why, I wonder?

Devil's advocate time. This is based on discussions here on dz.com, discussions at the DZ, and thinking about it:

You seem to be assuming that the USPA could/should optimize for promoting skydiving. Another argument is that like most organizations, it actually optimizes for ensuring its own continued existence. If they raise the membership by a signifcant amount, some number of people will stop being USPA members. But many of those people won't stop jumping. Some DZs will happily take your money if you're a USPA member or not. If word gets around that you can skip the annual fee but stil jump, USPA would lose even more members. If your goal is to continue to exist, this is bad.

Another way to look at it is the argument heard here that the USPA has become or is becoming mostly a trade association for DZOs. If you think this is true, there is an incentive to keeping membership prices low. If it's true that DZs make a lot more money on students than they do on up-jumpers, then they'd like to get as many students as they can. Having a high membership price would increase the number of students who don't complete the student program - if you're selling $150-$200 AFF jumps, a $50 membership is probably an easier sell than a $150 one. If you really want to make more money, it's a safer bet to increase the student training requirements (coach jumps, etc). This boosts revenue to the DZOs, and if you say it's for "safety" then few will question it. Also, if most of the DZs follow the USPA training program, the student is "stuck" - he can't easily go to another DZ that doesn't require coach jumps.

Again, the above is a "devil's advocate" point of view and does not necessarily reflect my personal opinions on this topic.

Eule

PLF does not stand for Please Land on Face.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

How many staff do you think it would take to setup programs to sent each new tandem passenger a complementary introductory Parachutist magazine,

I see no reason for me to pay more so one-off tandem passengers can get a magazine. Isn't that one of the benefits of a temporary membership?

Quote

hold marketing related group meetings more often than once-per-year, add value to those meetings causing more dropzone owners to actually show up

I could be wrong, but I thought USPA was an organization by and for jumpers, not DZO's.

[kallend 1,621]

No pilot or aircraft owner has to join AOPA in order to fly (compare with USPA), but AOPA has a very large membership because (1) it offers services and advocacy that pilots want, and (2) I suspect few pilots are economically marginal, while many skydivers seem to be.

I don't see doing much about item (2), but I'd be willing to pay more if USPA had, say, a decent insurance program, or if it went to pay for more effective lobbying

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

2) The USPA is a liason organization between the skydiving community and the FAA. They lobby on our behalf....

In case #2; They're doing just fine with the money they already have. More money isn't the solution to people whacking into the ground, so again, I don't want to give them any more money than I already do.

I'm not in favor of increasing membership fees by $600,000, but I do think it would help to have a bit more money available for the lobby effort. Right now USPA has one person handling all regulatory issues at the state and federal levels. That seems to be one of the most important functions, running neck-and-neck with Safety and Training. I think Ed Scott has a bit too much on his plate and could really use a second full time person working regulation and serving as industry liaison.

I'd like to see an additional person in Safety and Training, and a second person in Government Affairs. Plus, I'd like each of those departments to have a bigger travel budget so they can reach out to local DZ's and other industry trade groups.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[JohnRich 4]

For those of you who voted "yes", feel free to send in more than is required the next time you renew your membership. Nothing is stopping you from making a voluntary donation above and beyond the standard rate.

But please don't try and raise the rates for the rest of us who think they are just fine as is.

[marks2065 0]

i don't see why so many people bitch about paying a little dues to keep their passion going - the uspa does alot of good for our sport and i think every penny is worth it - they promote safety and lobby for us to have a dz pretty much anywhere we want - maybe we don't all agree on all issues but most will agree that most of what the uspa does is good for the sport - it's better than any branch of the government - what do you think skydiving would be like today if uspa wasn't around ? how many dz's would be closed because of the faa or airport managers that just don't like skydiving ? a 10 - 20 percent increase to help our sport no problem - i say go for it

[quade 3]

Quote

I'm not in favor of increasing membership fees by $600,000, but I do think it would help to have a bit more money available for the lobby effort. Right now USPA has one person handling all regulatory issues at the state and federal levels. That seems to be one of the most important functions, running neck-and-neck with Safety and Training. I think Ed Scott has a bit too much on his plate and could really use a second full time person working regulation and serving as industry liaison.

I'd like to see an additional person in Safety and Training, and a second person in Government Affairs. Plus, I'd like each of those departments to have a bigger travel budget so they can reach out to local DZ's and other industry trade groups.

Tom --

I see your point and it's a good one.

However, most of the issues are really not USPA issues as much as they are General Aviation issues.

I would like to see closer cooperation between the USPA and AOPA in this regard and leave the USPA to issues that solely concern the membership and not so much the Group Memeber drop zones. Most drop zones and most skydivers couldn't give a rat's ass about issues such as Ground Proximity Radars on turbine aircraft or turbine fuel taxes to fund ATC.

In my view, the USPA is supposed to be about the average skydiver. Having them redundantly fight issues that will also be fought by AOPA is, in my view, simply a waste of resources. In those cases where there is no AOPA involvement, then clearly the USPA needs to step in, but once AOPA has stated a position on something in the direction that we'd go anyway, it seems to me that we should smile, nod and let them fight the bigger battles. They have far more than we could ever hope to have anyway.

I'm not saying this is the way things are currently being done, but it is a perception I have.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[NickDG 23]

>>*IF* a governing organization is spending money wisely - every dollar spent is well spent.<<

Of course you are correct in the above. and that's been the problem.

I can recall when the membership files were on index cards and kept in a shoe box by Norm Heaton when headquarters was in a rundown old San Francisco Cannery Row "fun" house.

If anything USPA is much less responsive and connected to individual jumpers nowadays. Did anyone read the latest Capital Commentary? Is it me or did that sound like slinging "happy talk" while the house is burning down . . . ?

We need to finally fix the Instructional program. It's high time "Accelerated Freefall" was accelerated out the window. There's too many things good Instructors can teach a student at twenty jumps that they can't at 7 jumps. Until we make the head nod towards longer periods of Instruction we are just pissing up a rope. An Instructor today can't turn out a well rounded student because of the time and jump number constraints.

The current Executive Director makes a 100 grand a year, if USPA finds itself needing to save money I suggest they start there . . .

NickD BASE 194

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't see doing much about item (2), but I'd be willing to pay more if USPA had, say, a decent insurance program, or if it went to pay for more effective lobbying

Wouldn't that jeopardize the non for profit status? Or is that only a concern for non profits?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...
We need to finally fix the Instructional program. It's high time "Accelerated Freefall" was accelerated out the window. There's too many things good Instructors can teach a student at twenty jumps that they can't at 7 jumps. Until we make the head nod towards longer periods of Instruction we are just pissing up a rope. An Instructor today can't turn out a well rounded student because of the time and jump number constraints.

I really don't see this as a USPA issue. This is a industry-wide, DZ-specific issue. There are no constraints on how much nor how long you can teach a student. A simple title, if this is what you are thinking, (cleared for self-supervison) does not constrain instruction. USPA tried to address this problem with the ISP but the DZOs squawked and you see how many DZs actually use it, opting instead for the "less labor-intensive and quicker" AFF-styled program.

Raising membership fees? Not until USPA re-focuses on skydivers instead of DZOs.

Question: Comparitively speaking, how many DZs have been forced out of business by local authorities vs how many have been saved from extinction by USPA/FAA action? We hear all the horn-tooting when one gets saved but rarely a blip when one gets sunk.

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

[rehmwa 2]

I'd like to see them do things to cut costs.

1 - eliminate the magazine and put it on-line - if that discounts the membership
2 - or allow me the option to not get the mag and get a membership discount as a result - especially for those with moe than one member in a household - what a waste
3 - get the 6 month pack cycle pushed through - any day now

more money isn't a solution

if some want to raise dues, I recommend they voluntarily send in an extra donation on their own and not lobby to force everyone else to follow suit involuntarily

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 3]

Quote

3 - get the 6 month pack cycle pushed through - any day now

What advantage do you see in a 6 month repack cycle?

Do you think it's somehow going to cost you less over the course of a year? Let me assure you that riggers aren't going to take an annual cut in pay and will simply raise their price for a repack.

Certainly it's not going to make rigs any -MORE- safe. The unfortunate truth is that, for a LOT of rigs, the current I&R done is the only real inspection the gear ever gets. Extending that to only twice a year doesn't make that any safer.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

we'll have to see how the riggers weather the change and how supply and demand settle out in the aftermath - lots of threads on this one too

advantages? less pack cycles on my reserve; agree the net yearly cost effect will not be straightforward

what about eliminating the magazine in lieu of something simpler or optional - isn't the magazine cost a big fraction of the budget?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Mr17Hz 1]

Quote

what about eliminating the magazine in lieu of something simpler or optional - isn't the magazine cost a big fraction of the budget?

I don't know the answer to this - but if it is - they're doing something drastically wrong. Almost *ALL* magazines are paid for entirely by advertisers. The *only* reason most magazine companies charge for magazines is because advertisers *require* them to charge shipping and handling fees so that they know that the magazine is only being sent to people that WANT them.

Matt Christenson

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

[NickDG 23]

I haven't looked at the budget lately, but advertising fee intake is usually a big part of USPA income. PARACHUTIST is a skydiving advertiser's dream as it's targeted right at the people who are most interested in their products. The downside is USPA is sometimes too reluctant to come right out and call a product a POS. They have tried, in the past, to attract more mainstream advertisers like auto and timepiece companies, and occasionally they bag one, but it never seems to last too long. Just not enough of us I suppose.

PARACHUTIST would be an excellent candidate for online distribution, more so than say SKYDIVING would be. SKYDIVING tells it like it is blemishes and all while PARACHUTIST is more about lipstick on the pig.

But don’t hold your breath about seeing it online. They'd be too afraid of the inevitable call for it also going interactive and instant membership feedback would defeat the whole purpose of why they hide out in a cold WX region where there aren’t many jumpers . . .

NickD BASE 194

[Lastchance 0]

How do you figure the USPA can control jump ticket prices?

I may be getting old but I got to see all the cool bands.

[thedarkside 0]

don't forget about ratings and new licences, they all add up. For example this year I paid my normal re-newal fee, new licence fee (expidite fee), coach rating fee, AFF-I rating fee...Now here's the kicker, my licence expires in Aug. but I didn't get a pro-rated fee on my ratings! So I'm sure between that, the magazine and normal fee's they are doing just fine.

Keep going faster until the joy of speed overcomes the fear of death.