AOPA - Positioning to be a CBO?
08-10-2016, 06:22 PM
#27
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Ah man, it looks like the stupid AOPA also thinks benefits are for members!! What BS. Just another money grab:
https://www.aopa.org/membership/membership-benefits
I asked AAA yesterday why they don't offer their services to non-members, because they too are another organization that feels benefits are for members only.!!
https://www.aopa.org/membership/membership-benefits
I asked AAA yesterday why they don't offer their services to non-members, because they too are another organization that feels benefits are for members only.!!
I'll be waiting for previously intimated complaints about this nefarious behavior by this CBO wannabe.....or perhaps that's reserved for the AMA only. Time will tell.
08-11-2016, 12:29 AM
#31
for those that had questions about the liability rules in TEXAS, see this thread
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...texas-r-c.html
do not remember which thread the questions were in, so since we all read every thread, i put the answer here.
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...texas-r-c.html
do not remember which thread the questions were in, so since we all read every thread, i put the answer here.
08-11-2016, 02:21 AM
#32
UMMM....no? ( I honestly DON'T see the limitations/difference in the context(s) that you used it in these threads anyway) Pretty much speaks for itself.
Maybe you should start a poll and see what the others think......
Why not lead by example and start one yourself?
Astro
Maybe you should start a poll and see what the others think......
Why not lead by example and start one yourself?
Astro
08-11-2016, 04:49 AM
#34
08-11-2016, 05:25 AM
#36
Astro my Friend , when dealing with a "one trick pony" like the poster your addressing in your post , it's best to outright ignore it and watch the fun as it gets more and more desperate for the attention & drama it craves . What do you want to bet that if every poster here who is sick of it's antics were to simply ignore it for a few days , it'll go find folks elsewhere that will engage it in it's trolling activities .
08-11-2016, 06:24 AM
#38
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might want to look back over the record of AOPA statements on model aircraft. Among other things they would prefer no models within 5 miles of an airport and zero flying above 400 feet. But hey, if they do become a CBO for models and those are their operational limits, then you will have another choice I suppose.
08-11-2016, 08:41 AM
#40
You might want to look back over the record of AOPA statements on model aircraft. Among other things they would prefer no models within 5 miles of an airport and zero flying above 400 feet. But hey, if they do become a CBO for models and those are their operational limits, then you will have another choice I suppose.
08-11-2016, 09:02 AM
#42
08-11-2016, 09:27 AM
#43
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I forgot to add is , I'm one of those who are doubtful that a second CBO would draw enough people to be able to financially support itself . It took us what , over 80 years to attain around 150K paying members , would that many or more really sign up , or even have just enough signups , to make the second CBO worthwhile for whomever is running it ? Sure , the options of choice are pretty universally seen as a good thing , but I have doubts this market is actually big enough to support competing CBOs . I really do think if there were another CBO , and I believed in it's mission , sure , I'd belong to both the AMA and the new CBO as well , very much in the same way that folks belong to the SIGs in our already established CBO , but I wonder how many others would , enough to make it worth running in the first place ?
Either or both could be a CBO very easily, even by the definition AMA tailored for itself.
I'm with you on belonging to more than one CBO. I'll keep paying the AMA gate toll for access to my club flying site, as always, and until there are other realistic options for access to improved flying sites.
08-11-2016, 09:36 AM
#44
Realistic options have always been available. Just start your own non-AMA club. In the meantime thanks for paying for all those AMA benefits I consume.
08-11-2016, 04:57 PM
#45
One thing I forgot to add is , I'm one of those who are doubtful that a second CBO would draw enough people to be able to financially support itself . It took us what , over 80 years to attain around 150K paying members , would that many or more really sign up , or even have just enough signups , to make the second CBO worthwhile for whomever is running it ? Sure , the options of choice are pretty universally seen as a good thing , but I have doubts this market is actually big enough to support competing CBOs . I really do think if there were another CBO , and I believed in it's mission , sure , I'd belong to both the AMA and the new CBO as well , very much in the same way that folks belong to the SIGs in our already established CBO , but I wonder how many others would , enough to make it worth running in the first place ?
the org already exists with brick and mortar facilities. just adding in a modeling section to the membership is mostly just some new paperwork and a flight safety guideline set.
fairly cheep.
so, for a while, at least, it does not really have to financially support itself.
08-11-2016, 06:09 PM
#48
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
that is what makes the AOPA idea attractive.
the org already exists with brick and mortar facilities. just adding in a modeling section to the membership is mostly just some new paperwork and a flight safety guideline set.
fairly cheep.
so, for a while, at least, it does not really have to financially support itself.
the org already exists with brick and mortar facilities. just adding in a modeling section to the membership is mostly just some new paperwork and a flight safety guideline set.
fairly cheep.
so, for a while, at least, it does not really have to financially support itself.