cj_rumley

I never expected you to comprehend it.

I really don't know what he thinks. For all I know he died.

....something reminded of this quip: "You should never say bad things about the dead, you should only say good . . . Joan Crawford is dead. Good." - Bette Davis

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Your example of what else was offered answers the question you asked of me. Curiously CJ left off the part about the pilots getting $500,000 in coverage as well, but then that wouldn't fit well with the whole "pounded into the AMA mold...", or being turned into insurance salesmen narrative. Oh, and the "compound" comment too, not to ominous. I know it's popular with some to discount the whole insurance thing, ie it's useless because it's secondary to H/O insurance (and the always favorite it doesn't matter anyway because all insurance companies do is deny claim), but once again, there are plenty of people who don't have H/O or even renters insurance, so even stripped to the bare minimum of benefits, $500k in coverage for $38.00 is a deal that no insurance agent or company could offer on it's own.

And as I might have noted before, this seems to fall into one of those damned if they do, damned if they don't scenarios. That they tried to craft another means of entry into the AMA for some, and went with a scaled down version of the full membership is being touted as a complete failure. Had they taken no steps to address those that wanted this, and at the same time didn't look for additional ways of building membership, they would again be castigated for not doing something. That the program also included instructions and guidance on how to form a chartered club, only to then have that turned around as a negative is curious as well. Not everyone has access to the land mass that all of us do, so if this has been successful to some degree, great. It might have lead to the formation of smaller clubs, unlike the "compounds" some of us fly at.



Not everything they do is going to be wildly successful, but it's almost certain it will be questioned and probably criticized. They will not be able to please everyone.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Ya...just way too deep.

combatpigg

My Feedback: (3)

In all of my travels I've only encountered two non-AMA member "Park Flyer Dudes" flying what fits the legal description of a park flyer.
I DO see from time to time "Rogue RC Flyers" out flying your typical 4 channel, heavier and / or faster stuff. Both Glow and Electric.
The AMA leadership and some of their flock [at this forum] were making claims that this was the "Wave Of The Future..!!"
I suggested adding a column in the existing AMA magazine, dropping informational leaflets into model plane boxes and creating an extra box to check on the membership application as a way to test the market for a negligible cost. The cost to do this would have been negligible and it would have netted the same results.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Do you belong to a club?

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

If only those folks had the benefit of knowing what the outcome would be before going about trying a new program. When you made your suggestions, was it here at RCU, or did you try to contact someone who could actually do something?

cj_rumley

I recently said in this or a contemporary thread that access to a club flying site is my only reason for paying the AMA tax.
If I could pay the ransom for access to a club site that I have 30 yrs of my time, $$ and sweat equity in for 75 bucks worth of bubble gum/year, I would. The bubble gum vendor won't claim to represent my interests in rotten teeth.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Well good to see you're enjoying your membership and the ability to fly at different compounds, although it appears you have a flying site.

init4fun

What I was left to question , is exactly where did the AMA think all these new park pilots were going to come from ? I live 30 miles outside of Boston Ma. and in my travels I see the same as CP , absolutly no parkie action whatsoever , in any of the parks I drive past . I believe the AMA saw the numbers of ARF parkies being sold and didn't take into account that these aren't being bought by a new type of flyer , but instead by us old farts looking for a lazy alternative to a half hour assembling the wings & such onto the quarter scale just to get a few quick flights in on a weekday afternoon . The "grab and go" nature of the parkies caused many of my flying buddies and myself to embrace them and that's where all the sales were , to us guys who already have full memberships . While I don't criticize the idea of getting new members , I do criticize the research that produced the (flawed) notion that there were all these parkie only people waiting for a membership catagory custom tailored just for them .

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I don't know what the research was that went into the decision making process on the PPP, it's been about 9 years, but companies (lets just say companies to make it easy) don't normally invest money and manpower and effort into launching something blindly. In addition to some market research, I have to guess they saw the smaller planes becoming more popular, electric foamies coming into the "mainstream", and saw it as a way to cater to those folks in a more metropolitanl area, who didn't fly at traditional RC fields. A break in membership dues, with the ability to upgrade when and if they saw fit to do so. I recall the discussions about it at RCG, before it was even rolled out there were people vehemently against it, and for it as well. i've learned not to suggest the AMA get credit for trying something.......so I'll just say at least they tried something. As it happens, it's sort of mirrors the issue of acceptance of the MR we are seeing now. My how time flies.

cj_rumley

I wasn't out to write the Great American Novel, but I did leave out an interesting part about how existing AMA members unknowingly made it happen. Here's the Email AMA sent out to see what we thought of the idea:


Most answered NO!, many comments indicating emphatically so. A few alert members noticed that the real agenda was in the part with bold type emphasis. The overwhelming No response provided the answer they wanted, i.e., to assure a few on the EC concerned AMA might lose revenue if significant numbers of members would switch to the membership offered at about half the price. Thus assured, AMA launched the program. Therein is a good lesson in how to conduct a poll to produce the desired result.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I don't have any data to suggest most respondents answered no, or for that matter how many people even responded. Questioning current members I guess makes some sense, but really did they expect a bunch of people would say sure, I'll take less benny's and pay less, when they were already holding open memberships. I would hope that was only part of their research process. I would hope that something other than that was the basis of their decision, like sales trending data from Horizon, Tower etc.

cj_rumley

Uh huh

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Take the cheap shots and deflect as you see fit....if you have all this data why not share it? Or are you guessing as well?

franklin_m

$$$$$

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Why does the AMA Executive Council feel the need to enlarge its' membership ranks instead of taking care of its' existing members?

Modelers created the AMA to serve them. In turn, it is expected that the clubs would create an atmosphere that would attract new members. Interest in this hobby happens at the flying field, not at the AMA headquarters. Seems bass ackwards to me.

Astro

cj_rumley

I could, but that would presume you know how to utilize a search engine. Sorry, I'm not inclined to do it for you.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Why would the AMA want to grow it's membership? Why would a flying club want to grow it's membership? They should just "take care of the existing" members. I guess the fallacy here is that they are not taking care of the existing ones, which isn't really supported. That they don't respond to every request, every suggestion, every great idea that's proposed to them shouldn't surprise anyone should it?

Safe to assume that any organization that just "takes care of the own", and doesn't seek to expand or grow is setting themselves up for extinction. Even more so ones with the demographics that the AMA has.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

So you have nothing but guesses. At best the "data" were comments here. Don't need to use a search engine to figure that one out. Anyway, it's a bit off topic and yet another action or process that's second guessed and criticized after the fact.

franklin_m

It was an email from me to the District III VP. I let him know this was the second request, the first made back around 2006, where nothing came of it. His response, in which he copied Dave M, he said that the idea had merit, but is not doable at this time. He went on to indicate that despite the fee increase, he feels the dues are reasonable even for military. It would not go to the board.

As for channeling my effort. As a former senior officer, I was concerned with the welfare of the troops, especially the young families making far less than many seniors. As a vet, I suppose I could have advocated for a discount for vets, but I see supporting the young families with a slight financial incentive to join as the greater need. It must not have been a terrible idea, as not too long ago the flying fields column mentioned trying to establish relationships with military Morale, Welfare, & Recreation programs -- which are targeted at junior personnel primarily - ironically the same group for which I was seeking to help become members via a small discount. One would think those two aligned.

As you said, the AMA has the power to decide and they did...it was vetoed at the district VP level. My interest is seeking out organizations that are interested in providing some tangible incentive for our young service men and women and their families to participate. I'll continue to advocate for the active duty folks. That's where I'll put my energy. If you want to promote fun and science or youth stuff, more power to you. It's just not my interest.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Do you read?

Astro

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

See above.

cj_rumley

As if your prattle weren't ridiculous enough, now this. AMA lobbied Congress for 336, a law intended to protect rights of AMA members only, disenfranchising the vast majority of model airplane enthusiasts. They now represent about 20% of modelers they had previously claimed to represent, and probably still claim when 'convenient,' as to maintain tax advantaged status as serving the public good. Does it really make any kind of sense to you that they did that just prior to instituting a new program to romance drone operators that operate in venues they have no experience with whatever in order to gain influence through member numbers?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Why would the AMA Executive Council worry about extinction? They might lose their jobs? The AMA is NOT a business! They are not rated by their "shareholders" by how much $$ they have. In fact, the ONLY $$ they have is OUR money, they work for us, and it is expected that our $$ comes back to us in one form or another, so it makes no matter how many members we have. It is our job as modelers to share our passion with others in hopes they will find the same enjoyment that we have. You can't force that on people, only be a positive model for it and if they choose to join, great, if not, so be it.

If the AMA would focus on taking care of their membership, the membership will thrive, and so will the hobby, eliminating the need for desperate "land grabs" of members who really do not wish to be members. That is a losing proposition.

Interest in this hobby is spawned AT THE FLYING FIELD NOT AT AMA HEADQUARTERS.

Astro

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

So at the end of the day the whole "go on record" request to me was just a big red herring. You already know what to do, and how to do it. That it took you 9 years to follow up on a suggestion you made is all on you, nobody else but you. I do however understand the disappointment in not having them take your suggestion further. You asked, they answered. I suppose money might be some kind of factor, but I doubt it would make that big of a dent in the overall scheme of things. I don't know if your noting that you will continue to advocate for active duty means you will keep asking for the same thing, if so I think that might bring further disappointment. But as you said, that's your interest and it's and honorable endeavor nonetheless. If it were me, I'd keep going up the chain, higher and higher. I know it was the VP who said no, but I'm wondering if reaching out to Brown and looking for an advocate there might not be something to look in to. Being the former President, he might have additional insights. Good luck either way, and I do mean that sincerely. It would also be a nice thing for some clubs to consider as well. Our club waived dues and kept the memberships current for active duty folks. We did not have that many though, and we are a larger club so it's easier to absorb that.

The info might be out there already, but are you aware of any club that is currently active on a military base?