RE: Should PFs pay less for same benefits as regular AMA members?
I've stayed away from AMA discussions for a while, given I started such a firestorm last time. That said, I find the whole Parkflyer program discussion pretty interesting. I've read all the posts so far, and I think everyone makes good points. Having spent a fair amout of time in the policy making and implementation business, I also see that this is a very interesting problem from the AMA's point of view.
Specifically, as was pointed out in a recent AMA magazine, the demographics of the membership is changing. That changing demomgraphics will drive revenue changes with the current fee structure (all downward). So without changes to the fee structure...not going to start that arguement again, only real solution is to try and bring in new members. Existing membership efforts aren't producing the growth needed, so the plan was introduced to try and capture "a new market." The problem is, that in doing so, they create an incentive to leave the higher priced fee structure. Not to say that cost model won't work, but we'll need a lot more members just to break even.
Another factor to consider is what is the marginal value of full price membership vs. a park flyer membership? I can compete in sactioned events (most don't anyway), get eight more magazines a year, and get an extra chunk of personal insurance. Oh, and I get to drive some distance away to fly at a suitable location when the alternative is to go to the local park instead with a smaller plane.
What I fear is the unintended consequences of the program, specifically that even more folks move from glow/gas to electric, and just go to smaller planes. Since most don't compete and can give or take the magazine, I'd argue not much is lost. Time will tell, but it will be interesting to watch the numbers. I'm not sure the program has enough incentive to join, yet creates an incentive for those who are already AMA members to move out of the higher cost program in favor of park flyers.