Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

Dues increase coming? 1 million spent on government relations.....

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Dues increase coming? 1 million spent on government relations.....

Old 04-01-2015, 03:07 PM
  #51  
BobbyMcGee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I have a problem with a dues increase ...
Doing the math, if the AMA boasts of having 175,000 members, each member paying $58 yields the AMA $10,150,000.00

That's 10 million, one hundred fifty thousand dollars each and every year!
Trying to estimate the family members and seniors who receive a discount on the dues will not significantly reduce that figure much below 10 MILLION DOLLARS.

Ten million dollars each and every year is more than enough to run the "organization" unless someone is mishandling the money or spending it unwisely.

Last edited by BobbyMcGee; 04-01-2015 at 03:16 PM.
Old 04-01-2015, 03:59 PM
  #52  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by BobbyMcGee View Post
I have a problem with a dues increase ...Doing the math, if the AMA boasts of having 175,000 members, each member paying $58 yields the AMA $10,150,000.00That's 10 million, one hundred fifty thousand dollars each and every year!Trying to estimate the family members and seniors who receive a discount on the dues will not significantly reduce that figure much below 10 MILLION DOLLARS.Ten million dollars each and every year is more than enough to run the "organization" unless someone is mishandling the money or spending it unwisely.
As a member you can access the audited financial statements on the AMA website. In 2013 the membership revenue was less then 8 million.
Old 04-02-2015, 06:25 AM
  #53  
Waco
My Feedback: (265)
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: OH
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Like anything else the bigger a organization gets the more it wastes and wants more.
Old 04-03-2015, 06:28 AM
  #54  
smithcreek
My Feedback: (25)
 
smithcreek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Westerly, RI
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Not long after congress passed the FAA exemption that was narrowly tailored to traditional radio control "model aircraft" flying the AMA had a choice. Represent the interests of the core membership by monitoring the FAA process to ensure traditional "model aircraft" flyers were not affected, or spend vast amounts of money on a "bait and switch" scheme where they claim the FAA exemption included drones in an attempt to increase membership. So, instead of using our dues to ensure a small "carve out" like the initial exemption, the AMA is now handing us a bill in the form of a dues increase for their attempt to become the CBO for drone flyers

I'm sure the AMA expects a payoff with increased membership, but why would anyone flying a drone join? I have a few friends with drones and they don't even have the foggiest idea who the AMA is and if I told them they could pay $58 to do exactly what they already do they would laugh at me. Kind of like Park Flyers, no? Just the fact that we are looking at a dues increase tells us how the AMA strategy is working.

I have no issue with drones. I think they are pretty dang cool. I just think they are different enough from traditional model aircraft that they will require a different set of rules/regulations. If the AMA keeps going down the path of lumping us all together under one set of rules/regulations it's the traditional model aircraft flyer that will pay the price, and not just in raised dues, but in more regulations and interference from outside the hobby.

Here in RI there are several bills in the legislature already and one is a requirement that every rc aircraft whether it's a traditional model or drone, is required to be registered and it will cost $10/aircraft. That never would have happened without drones and it's an example of how the AMA should be spending time and money to make sure there is a distinction between the two.

Last edited by smithcreek; 04-03-2015 at 06:36 AM.
Old 04-03-2015, 06:44 AM
  #55  
fliers1
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lockport, NY
Posts: 1,287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Maybe AMA should contact Marcus Lemonis http://www.cnbcprime.com/the-profit/

Last edited by fliers1; 04-03-2015 at 07:10 AM.
Old 04-03-2015, 12:23 PM
  #56  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by smithcreek View Post
I have no issue with drones. I think they are pretty dang cool. I just think they are different enough from traditional model aircraft that they will require a different set of rules/regulations. If the AMA keeps going down the path of lumping us all together under one set of rules/regulations it's the traditional model aircraft flyer that will pay the price, and not just in raised dues, but in more regulations and interference from outside the hobby.

OK, but just how does one distinguish a "drone" from a scale Cub flying FPV, a camera equipped glider, or a video camera carrying single rotor RC heli?

In the end it comes down to how a airframe is used and not any feature of the airframe. That has been the issue since the FAA ARC, how to with the FAA used term sUAS to distinguish between "drones" and "models". The line "recreational" or "commercial" is probably the best that can be done.

Last edited by bradpaul; 04-03-2015 at 12:25 PM.
Old 04-03-2015, 02:29 PM
  #57  
smithcreek
My Feedback: (25)
 
smithcreek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Westerly, RI
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul View Post
OK, but just how does one distinguish a "drone" from a scale Cub flying FPV, a camera equipped glider, or a video camera carrying single rotor RC heli?

In the end it comes down to how a airframe is used and not any feature of the airframe. That has been the issue since the FAA ARC, how to with the FAA used term sUAS to distinguish between "drones" and "models". The line "recreational" or "commercial" is probably the best that can be done.
The AMA originally set up rules for FPV that required a second pilot on a buddy box who always maintained line of sight but that is changing in order to appeal to "drone only" pilots that don't want to fly with the safety restrictions we are used to. Again, that's fine, but the AMA should seek a "carve out" that totally exempts traditional model airplane flying first, then worry about drones. The original two pilot, buddy box, line of sight rule is the perfect cutoff point for traditional model flying. The AMA can easily define anything beyond that as drone flying whether it's done with a quad copter or a cub. You want to fly your cub by yourself, FPV, beyond visual range? Now you're flying a drone. Once the distinction is clear the AMA can work to get the best FAA rules/regulations for that part of the hobby without hurting the traditional part.
Old 04-03-2015, 02:45 PM
  #58  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by smithcreek View Post
The AMA originally set up rules for FPV that required a second pilot on a buddy box who always maintained line of sight but that is changing in order to appeal to "drone only" pilots that don't want to fly with the safety restrictions we are used to. Again, that's fine, but the AMA should seek a "carve out" that totally exempts traditional model airplane flying first, then worry about drones. The original two pilot, buddy box, line of sight rule is the perfect cutoff point for traditional model flying. The AMA can easily define anything beyond that as drone flying whether it's done with a quad copter or a cub. You want to fly your cub by yourself, FPV, beyond visual range? Now you're flying a drone. Once the distinction is clear the AMA can work to get the best FAA rules/regulations for that part of the hobby without hurting the traditional part.

OK, however you do realize that the vast majority of what most call "Drones" are line of sight flown quadcopters with a video camera.

I would agree with your definition that BLOS weather FPV or autonomous is automatically a "drone", however IMHO the majority that post here would call a quadcopter flown LOS a "drone" that the AMA should disavow. .

Last edited by bradpaul; 04-03-2015 at 02:48 PM.
Old 04-04-2015, 08:20 AM
  #59  
TimJ
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul View Post
What I would recommend is a hike in the full page add rates in MA. The vendors and manufactures need to kick in and get off the free ride they have for lobbying by the AMA. Leave the small add prices alone to help the mom and pop operations, but Hobbyco, Tower, HobbyKing, and others can pony up. It's not as if there are alternatives for them to advertise in..
You will still end up paying for it in the form of higher prices for your toys. YOU get to pay for it either way.
Old 04-04-2015, 09:01 AM
  #60  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TimJ View Post
You will still end up paying for it in the form of higher prices for your toys. YOU get to pay for it either way.
Of course " Captain Obvious". but the cost would only be incremental to a purchase I would want to make and not a mandatory dues increase.
Old 04-04-2015, 06:33 PM
  #61  
littlecrankshaf
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul View Post
Of course " Captain Obvious". but the cost would only be incremental to a purchase I would want to make and not a mandatory dues increase.
Yea...and those worthless non-AMAish could pay more on every purchase to help fund AMA's quest to be the model airplane divinity.
Old 04-04-2015, 08:54 PM
  #62  
busted2props
Senior Member
My Feedback: (9)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: tyler, TX
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

//

Last edited by busted2props; 04-06-2015 at 11:21 AM.
Old 04-24-2015, 06:46 PM
  #63  
PLANE JIM
My Feedback: (109)
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: AT THE AIRPORT
Posts: 2,004
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

nn
Old 04-24-2015, 07:18 PM
  #64  
littlecrankshaf
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by PLANE JIM View Post
nn
finally, something I can't argue with... Hmmm...you're no fun!
Old 06-01-2015, 11:50 AM
  #65  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Since someone mentioned the financial statements, I noticed an interesting trend. Go look at End of Year cash on hand in 2006, and look at the same number for 2013.
Old 06-02-2015, 03:16 PM
  #66  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
Since someone mentioned the financial statements, I noticed an interesting trend. Go look at End of Year cash on hand in 2006, and look at the same number for 2013.
It was mentioned two months ago.

Without even looking I'm guessing it's less in 2013 than it was in 2006. And? Not sure what the conclusion is, it's a set of numbers absent context. Lot's of the numbers have changed. Some up, some down. There are multiple ways of explaining that. Why start at 2006 thought, go back to 2001, it looks like it was double what it was in 2013. Again, so what?

What is your theory on the trend?
Old 06-03-2015, 08:12 AM
  #67  
littlecrankshaf
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post

What is your theory on the trend?
I'd like to hear his opinion on the "trend" too. Frustrating when someone uses the word trend without supporting it with some kind of analysis, even opinion based... however biased... or the reasons why they say such a thing...have no way to even begin to understand their point, much less argue it... LOL ;-)
Old 06-03-2015, 08:52 AM
  #68  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf View Post
I'd like to hear his opinion on the "trend" too. Frustrating when someone uses the word trend without supporting it with some kind of analysis, even opinion based... however biased... or the reasons why they say such a thing...have no way to even begin to understand their point, much less argue it... LOL ;-)
Ironic to that he was just recently complaining about the media writing sensational things which obviously are meant to get attention...and there goes a post on a topic silent for two months with a click-baity kinda question, very tabloid like.

FYI the financial records are interesting to read and see what goes on from year to year. Numbers/stats/results can be spun many different ways, usually to the benefit of the "spinner". The cash on hand numbers have fluctuated from year to year, both up and down. Don't know why 2006 was selected as the first benchmark, but I'm guessing it's because that was the highest number and will make for better copy, and to juxtapose next to the 203 numbers. Not as "hardhitting" when you put 2.6 next to 3.6 right? But 2.6 next to 6.5 is more.....what?

Again, they are two sets of numbers. Perhaps they wanted to decrease their cash on hand and put the money to use some other way, stocks, bonds, CDs, whatever. Net assets from 2006 to 2013 are not that drastically different.

OR ARE THEY.........??????
Old 06-03-2015, 09:35 AM
  #69  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf View Post
I'd like to hear his opinion on the "trend" too. Frustrating when someone uses the word trend without supporting it with some kind of analysis, even opinion based... however biased... or the reasons why they say such a thing...have no way to even begin to understand their point, much less argue it... LOL ;-)
I trusted that you're bright boys and you'd figure it out. But let me share a story and see if that helps.

Hypothetically, let's say I own a gym. I own assets, say equipment, some property, some equipment, and even some inventory. Like most businesses, I probably owe some money. In this case, let's say I owe money for my newly renovated building and some fancy new treadmills. I'm looking at my books over the past few years and note that despite reducing expenses, paying off debt, and increasing the number of patrons, the total value of my business (including cash on hand) has gone down! Do I charge my patrons more?
Old 06-03-2015, 09:43 AM
  #70  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
Net assets from 2006 to 2013 are not that drastically different.
Market returns for ten year period 2002 to 2012, up 7.2%. Compare AMA assets, liabilities, expenses, and cash on hand over that same period.
Old 06-03-2015, 06:15 PM
  #71  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
I trusted that you're bright boys and you'd figure it out. But let me share a story and see if that helps.

Hypothetically, let's say I own a gym. I own assets, say equipment, some property, some equipment, and even some inventory. Like most businesses, I probably owe some money. In this case, let's say I owe money for my newly renovated building and some fancy new treadmills. I'm looking at my books over the past few years and note that despite reducing expenses, paying off debt, and increasing the number of patrons, the total value of my business (including cash on hand) has gone down! Do I charge my patrons more?
Duh, of course not, You do like most other gym owners do, you sell the place after 2 years and some other schmo buys the place and it takes him two or three years to realize whata racket Gyms are, and then sells. The new owner turns it into a Bikram yoga place and makes a ton of dough.

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
Market returns for ten year period 2002 to 2012, up 7.2%. Compare AMA assets, liabilities, expenses, and cash on hand over that same period.
No. Too much work, I'll let my team of accountants and Cooke & D'Bookes deal with that grunt work.

But again, what is your point, other than to not answer the question, again. What is your opinion. Let's agree that the market is up 7.2%. And then what? All results for all entities/groups/businesses should be up as well? Hardly a logical conclusion.

Perhaps an apples to apples comparison would help.

Or better yet, give us your thoughts on what is going on. AMA has less money on hand in 2013 than is did in 2006. And? AMA net assets not down significantly over the same period. And?
Old 06-03-2015, 07:18 PM
  #72  
littlecrankshaf
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
I trusted that you're bright boys and you'd figure it out. But let me share a story and see if that helps.

Hypothetically, let's say I own a gym. I own assets, say equipment, some property, some equipment, and even some inventory. Like most businesses, I probably owe some money. In this case, let's say I owe money for my newly renovated building and some fancy new treadmills. I'm looking at my books over the past few years and note that despite reducing expenses, paying off debt, and increasing the number of patrons, the total value of my business (including cash on hand) has gone down! Do I charge my patrons more?
Ahhh, something to argue LOL. Thank you! ;-)

I wouldn't be the least bit worried...as the AMA is not for profit...unlike your gym hypothetical... Anyway, as for as any nefarious aspersions one may glean from your remarks, I have always figured the AMA officers to be very honest "about the money". I may disagree about some of the principles and methods but AMA is very well positioned in the market they own...LOL
Old 06-04-2015, 02:37 AM
  #73  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
What is your opinion....Or better yet, give us your thoughts on what is going on. AMA has less money on hand in 2013 than is did in 2006. And?
Not alleging anything nefarious, just thinking that we've got a fee increase coming.

Last edited by franklin_m; 06-04-2015 at 03:00 AM.
Old 06-04-2015, 03:00 AM
  #74  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by littlecrankshaf View Post
...as the AMA is not for profit...unlike your gym hypothetical...
There's nothing magic about a non-profit, so their balance sheet is close to zero at the end of the year and they don't pay taxes. Not a big deal. A non-profit still has to respond to and manage market forces.

In this case, AMA has an aging membership. That's been a discussion from time to time in the magazine / meeting minutes, as they see this wave of discounts coming. Without fresh new members to offset the reduction in revenue, the money has to come from somewhere. Since total assets are down, despite a pretty substantial reduction in liabilities and expenses, the money has to come from somewhere. Absent a money tree growing in Muncie, then it either comes from cash or selling assets. Paying members are up 2.2%, but the issue is will that be enough to offset the wave of discounts. Or will they also have to drop the discount? Or raise fees? Don't know.
Old 06-04-2015, 03:07 AM
  #75  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,936
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
AMA net assets not down significantly over the same period.
If an organization has managed to reduce liabilities by double digits, reduced expenses by near double digits, and yet total assets and cash on hand are both down as well, it says something about the rate at which money/value is leaving the organization as compared to money/value coming in. Simply put, the drain spigot is larger than the filling spigot. Not terrible, it's over a ten year period, but the trend is consistent over the long term.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.