Regarding a "poll" to determine AMA members feelings about PPP, the following was sent (I presume to all members for whom AMA had an Email address on file):
In a message dated 4/21/2006 8:58:23 PM Central Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Dear AMA Member,
I am sending this E-mail to you in a request for your assistance. With recent advancements in electric R/C technologies and the advent of the very popular "Park Flyer" aircraft, the demographics of the modeling community are rapidly changing. In order to better serve our members the AMA Executive Council is considering instituting a membership program that is specifically aimed at addressing the needs of the park flyer pilots. We have defined these "park flyer modelers" as having models that weigh 2 pounds or less, do not exceed 60 mph, and do not fly higher than 200 feet.
This proposed program would have less insurance coverage, be limited to non-sanctioned events, and include a bimonthly magazine focusing on electric-powered aircraft. Additionally, we view this new membership group as establishing electric-power flying fields in urban areas and not being part of existing clubs. We have priced this program at $29.95 per year.
To better assess the views of the membership, the AMA Executive Council is seeking your input in answering the following questions:
1) Given your current involvement in the hobby, would an "electric only" program as described above better meet your needs?
2) If such an alternative membership program was offered, would you be inclined to choose this program over your existing full-service membership?
Again, I want to underscore that this is a proposed program.
Thank you for your assistance!
Joyce Hager
Note that the two questions posed to members addressed just one concern, and only one: How many Open members would AMA lose to the proposed bargain basement tier?
"Views of the membership" be damned, it's always been about the money, period. Many members did express their views in reply emails, to the chagrin of Ms Hager. Only the overwhelmingly negative replies to the specific questions were of any interest to the people at AMA HQ hawking the program internally to the EC, and were interpreted as the go-ahead from the membership at large. AMA members, your Nay 'votes' were counted as a resounding 'Aye' for PPP.
Abel