abel_pranger

As promised in a thread where this question was on the 'topical fringe,' this is an attempt to move that subject to its own thread.

To summarize, it appears that the AMA Park Pilot program offers the park flyers the same essential products that draw most regular AMA members that fly non-competitively, i.e., site owner liability insurance in the limit of $2,500,000 to help them secure flying sites, and a magazine. The new Park Pilot magazine appears to be be more costly per copy, but there are fewer copys per year, however, the range of difference in cost for the magazine benefit can reasonably be estimated as in the range of $0-$6.

PPP members won't be allowed in AMA sanctioned competition, so it seems fair to limit the cost/benefit comparison to park flyers and the majority of regular AMA members that do not engage in competition.

Should regular AMA members in the sport-flying category pay on the order of 75-90% more for essentially the same benefits as are being offered to park flyers?
or,
Are there benefits to same regular AMA members that I missed accounting for and add up to that 75-90% price premium being a good value?

Abel

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

PP's only get 500k coverage. The 2.5mm comes from the club insurance when only flying at AMA club site. $58 members get 2.5mm everywhere the safety code allows.

abel_pranger

For info, Ref 2nd page of AMA announcement of the Park Pilot Program in MA Jan 2008:

"And best of all, members will be able to inform landowners and officials that they'd be covered by AMA site liability coverage in the amount of $2.5 million, which should serve as a great incentive."

Abel

gunfighter

My Feedback: (1)

You said it Abel - SITE liability, not Personal liability.

Site liability covers the LANDLORD if he is sued. It does NOT cover the individual. PFers only have 20% as much personal liability as regular AMA members.

And where did you get your figures? How is $29.95 only 10 - 25% of $58? Looks like it is more like 51% of the cost of regular AMA membership.

20% of the insurance, No competitions no access to MA magazine and 51% of the cost of regular AMA membership. Sounds like a completely different deal!

exeter_acres

My Feedback: (2)

another brand new, never discussed topic!


Bravo!

abel_pranger

The landlord cares about about his butt, not yours. AMA got into the insurance business initially to protect site owners, and so get access to flying fields. Personal insurance is a person's own business. Dave Brown argued this point, saying the personal insurance was required so litigants wouldn't go after the land owners. How does his argument wash when the landowner of a PF flying site has 5 times the amount of insurance coverage as any individual using his site?

$29.95 plus 90% is $56.90. Not down to the nickel of the $58 most of us pay, but too close to being in the right ballpark to be called deceptive.
I said in my opening post that I felt a comparison between PFs and non-competitors seemed fair, as most AMA members are not into competition. I am not, but I don't doubt that that those that do compete are generally more happy with their share of the pie. As for access to MA, I presume that PFs would have the the same access to it as regular AMA members have to Park Pilot.

Abel

804

My Feedback: (1)

This might be abit of a stretch, but one benefit of the sport flyers subsidizing the competition pilots is the level of planes we get to fly.I think competition breeds better machinery.


Bill

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Abel the PP is here now, why ya still fighting it?

Oh and are you under the belief that a product or service is priced on what it cost to produce said product? I'll assume you've purchased at least 1 stock certificate in your life before???

You can pull all the numbers out of the air you want, but the program is priced accordingly based on supply, demand and futures and now it's up to the EC and the AMA to make the numbers fit within. But I can assure you the PP program has it's own budget. If the program does not sustain it's budget Abel, I can assure you they will can it as fast as they started it. But only time will tell.

So .... let the clock start ticking.

franklin_m

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.

abel_pranger

Now that question brings up an interesting paradox, Dion. There was a lot of discussion about this program before it was announced, and many people voiced their support (well, not so many), and most took a stance opposed to it. I didn't oppose it until after it was announced and I started learning about the details of it. Would it have given you the warm fuzzies if, like most, I had said I wasn't thrilled with it before AMA HQ told us what it was about?
I am under no such delusion. This program is being offered at $29.95, just as Ms. Hager said it would be in her broadcast Email 2 years ago. It is being offered at a price determined by some marketeer as being what the market will bear by whatever occult process, and does not reflect what it costs, at least not in the same cost/benefit ratio as what current, 'regular,' AMA members are dealt. Ergo my primary reason for withholding my approval of it.

The numbers I have pulled out are sourced by AMA. On what basis do you assure me that the PP program has its its own budget? Cite sources. I would be be very interested in seeing the AMA budget for the coming year that has been approved by the EC, even sans the PP program.

Abel

ira d

I really dont have a problem with the AMA trying to drum up some new members,
as I said before I thought it would have been a good idea if the AMA would have
gave all first time members a big discount. But the the PF program the way it
is I doubt will go very far, OTH I could be wrong and it might be biggest success
in AMA history we will just have to wait and see.

In any case if program succeeds or fails I dont think it will have much of a impact on me or where I fly.

KidEpoxy

Abel-
You mentioned the lack of Sanctioned Competition.
Does that mean a PPP club can have unsanctioned competitions?
Is there such a thing?
I dont compete, I really cant even estimate what miniscule fraction of 1% of competition rules my limited knowlege on the subject is.... what I'm saying is I dont know anything about it. But can PPP fields have PPP guys compete even adhoc? The one little sliver I picked up lurking a race thread was something about having to follow the AMA competition safety rules even for unsanctioned competitions (or some such).

Can 2 PPP guys at a PPP field say
'First to that tree & back 5 times... ready, GO!'

Are there competition limits other than sanctioning events, if so.... like what?
Will they be holding informal races unsanctioned? What safety rules would apply to those informal E-Races?
Or will we assume no PPP guy would ever try outfly another PPP guy in some way.

I ask this cause you ponder what the PPP give up,
saying they give up Sanctioned Competition means what exacly do they give up, just National Titals?

abel_pranger

KE-
Yes, yes and yes............
I've seen nothing in AMA releases to indicate unsanctioned competition won't be allowed in the PP Program, only that participation in AMA sanctioned events isn't included as a membership benny.

You don't have to belong to NHRA to have a drag race, do you? If you did, there wouldn't be enough pokeys in the country.

Abel

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

Cite sources? Building a company for dummies, business 101, and my mother. Are you kidding me Abel do you think that the PPP won't have it's own budget? Come on Abel the AMA has been in business for 70 yrs under practically the same business model and now have introduced an entirely new structure and you don't think it's going work on it's own steam and budget? You asked you DVP a question a week ago and got an answer, prove me wrong and ask him.

Also if the PPP fails, the AMA will cut the cord, another thing you can learn in business 101 and so forth. Think about Abel the AMA is taking a risk and they believe. But if the AMA believed that the PPP would take off to the races it would not have limited programs, benefits and pricepoints. Didn't DM believe that the PPP should be priced the same as the current program originally? He said it himself. But he knows the AMA is taking a risk and when you take a risk you don't put all your eggs or beliefs in 1 basket, but you still take the risk. The AMA is taking a risk, thus the pricepoint and benefits.

abel_pranger

All the discussion that has transpired for months/years about MA costs, P&L and such leads me to believe AMA mgmt never took the course, read the book, or talked to your mother.

Abel

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Out of one side of your mouth you say AMA is taking a risk while out of the other side you say there is two separate budgets? Bottom line is the bottom line...period...regardless of pseudo terms or semantics. The AMA as a whole stands to gain or lose. I figure it will be a lose and cost the membership greatly…but I could be wrong and hope I am but never the less the risk is real no matter how you compartmentalize it with bs terms.

BTW Where did they get the operating capital for this venture? Did you finance this throw?

I thought this PPP was an attempt to add to the AMA's base...now we learn there are two distinct and separate operations????? Not.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

"the AMA will cut the cord"

Wow! there is some great incentive to organize Park Flying clubs... With that kind of commitment it could only be a success...not...

STL, I think you just say anything to bolster your point at whatever time it is most effective to keep us spinning. Some of us are a little harder to spin. Thanks but no thanks…your carnival rides are just too expensive.

STLPilot

My Feedback: (21)

No I didn't. But I also know that the money I put into the AMA is not for a stock certificate, it's for a 1 year's membership. So far the AMA has lived up to their end of the bargain each year and given me exactly what I asked for and sometimes even more, like a DVD and a coin, for example. They financed their money from 70 years worth off building a company. IF you want to say that the money was financed by AMA members, year after year, fine. How many members who are no longer with us today help pay for the PPP???

But to think the AMA will not run a redundant budget for this program is ludicrous. Like I said, call me a liar, a fool, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out the AMA will run this program independent from the current $58 program. Go ahead .... ask ... I mean are you kidding?

What the AMA does with their money is decided by the people YOU vote in elections. 93% of the AMA must have gotten what they have paid for as well last year. The other 7% are just political. When was the last time we saw a thread where the AMA didn't pay a claim, not deliver a magazine? I know they might be out there, but they sure as heck aren't in here.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

See...here you go...trying to get this one closed down too!

Try to stay on topic please.

Now, How are we supposed to promote park flying clubs when we would be less than open by not telling them "your parky club will be canned in an instant if we (the other AMA) don’t profit enough on you"

Park flyers have always been welcome in the AMA. This program does very little compared to the exposure to risks associated with it...IMO

abel_pranger

Ludicrous? You're talking about the way AMA has always run its programs, and I have no reason to believe it will be any different for this one. The key product AMA is selling to the PFs is liability insurance for the site owner. They said that loud and clear, as I cited in post #3 above. AMA has operated with a one-for-all liability policy since the inception of the insurance programs offered to members. Personal insurance and club insurance and site owner insurance, all lumped into one policy (actually two, with one having a lower liability limit and the other in excess up to the $2.5 mil limit, but from the members perspective effectively one policy). Payout history is shrouded in secrecy, ostensibly because of legalese confidentiality clauses in settlements. A fallout from that arcane MO is that members have zero visibility into what they are paying for personal insurance vs. what they are contributing to subsidize clubs and site owners. You are claiming that the PPP will be run independently of pre-existing AMA programs, and it seems obvious that one of the two major cost items is insurance. Based on history of AMA operations, I don't believe that. Prove it. Show me the separate insurance policy for PPP.

Abel

KidEpoxy

yes, meanwhile back at the topic....

so the PPP give up a magazine that costs ($6.45/6.66/7.30/8.57/9/14/28/30 you choose) ,
but they get a $10 quarterly magazine,
and they get a bit less insurance ( full rumored to be ballpark $10),
and they cant own competition titals,
and they can fly at regular clubs as guests (?? like the PPDay guys??)
...
The only tangible savings would be the insurance reduction, the others are subjective value.
For the Parkies that join PPP, I dont see them putting a high value to the competition or sparatic (local club bans?) ability to fly at standard fields where they are the stepchidren. If they truely valued that, they would have joned standard AMA already for the price of just a 3s Lipo back in '02.

For the 70-90% of standard AMA that dont compete (my wildazz guess %), the PPP guys are in the same boat.
How prolificly is the Guest Benefit getting used now? I know it does happen, but is that too a benefit not used by 70-90%? Dunno, I really am asking how much you guys see it used and if 70%+ is a reasonable estimate.

Seems the most focused benefit is the site insurance, but we are talking about the Parkies that dont fly at clubs.... so for a guy that flys at home & officelot & street & park, the site insurance wont be a big draw.



Hmmm.
Will PPP get a safety rule to prohibit Streetflying? Even something as innocent as "PPP maynot fly off the street where it is illegal" could really upset a bunch of guys. We may see a whole lot more Dont Ask-Dont Get Banned flying.


So is it really the same benefits, as put up in the topic?
Looks close to me, if you put Subjective Usefulness Benefits" on the already Subjective Value bennies


<edit append>
Oooooh, lookie there, we now have the crux
PPP dont get to vote.
So much for GlacierGirl's mosquito theory.
The 2million mosquitos are welcome to join, as long as they cant vote. Seems they somehow left that out of the 4page ad.

Hossfly

Abel, you have outdone yourself. It can't get any better than that response of yours.

[sm=49_49.gif]

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

The sound of crickets is deafening. LOL

Great point as usual Abel...I think you blew STL's position clean out of the thin air (or wherever) he pulls his stuff from. Touché!

KidEpoxy

If some guys here join up as PPP,
that will at least stop them from voting from now on,
so I would have to say there is a positive side to the PPP.

There is your value break Abel:
They sell their vote for $29 dues discount

P-51B

My Feedback: (5)

Of course the pf should pay less.

Free flight and gliders should pay double. And obviously, 1/2a flyers should be kicked out of AMA entirely.