|
Early December Mark Newton wrote:
" (2) gliding activity in the
US is declining a hell of a lot faster than it is in Australia, so I'm not sure
that it's a good idea to emulate whatever it is that they're
doing. ".
As a member of the SSA I have just received their note
that advised the following:
The only other big news from last week is that we closed the
membership books for November and thus, now know what our 2005 member number is
(drum roll please.) We ended the year with 12,740 members, up from 12,434 in
2004, which was up from 12,122 at the end of 2003. This makes the second
consecutive year of membership growth for the SSA (for those that may be
wondering, the membership year here at SSA is considered to be from December
1 st to November 30, due to a large number of Chapters that
renew in December). While this number, 12,740, is somewhat below the target
established two years ago by the Strategic Planning Committee, I am nevertheless
pleased from the standpoint that we have now proven that we can sustain a
program of membership growth. I think there are more soaring enthusiasts out
there that we can convince to join us in the SSA. If you know of any, please
help us sign them up. There is strength in numbers.
Mark - Do you therefore
mean that their membership growth is not growing as dynamically as ours?
What growth do they need not to be in decline in your view ..... or are you
just saying that they just aren't as active, like flying less or doing less
miles?
Does anyone know what our
Membership figures & trends have been for the past 2
-3 years
Regards Geoff
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 11:23
AM
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The Future of
Gliding Part 2
mark king wrote:
> One recent article in the magazine
asks the question re is there a large
> pool of pilots out there
current and possible who want to fly for
> recreational purposes as
distinct from competition or long distance
> flights?
I think
the population of people like that is understated. Terry Cubley
is
promoting the sports side of gliding quite a bit, but only about 2% of
GFA
members seem to front-up to competitions, so I reckon his priorities
are a
tad misguided there. I think the other 98% of GFA members are
more
interested in the social and recreational aspects of gliding than
its
sporting side.
(frankly I couldn't care less about competitions myself,
but that doesn't
mean I don't lend every possible encouragement to those in
my club who do)
> What I am suggesting is that if GFA is to
significantly grow the glider
> pilot market it needs to do a lot more
then provide some assistance to
> clubs. I am saying it needs to be out
there leading the way, doing the
> work itself on the frontline of
gaining members. To do that you need
> additional funding and I suggest
a front line "shopfront" to put gliding
> on the public's map of cool
things to do.
The GFA isn't set up to do that. The GFA is, more
than anything else,
a regulator. Yes, it does have other functions,
but they're largely
subservient to its regulatory role.
I suspect
that widespread acceptance and understanding of that reality
would end the
somewhat boring and repetitive "why can't the GFA do XXX"
debates lots of
people seem to have.
The way gliding in Australia is structured puts
the clubs on the front-line.
To grow gliding we need the clubs to
grow. To grow the clubs we need the
club members to put in the hard
yards needed to make it happen; But lots
of the club members have
been around for long enough that they feel like
they've done their bit, and
the new members have spent so long being supported
by the old ones that
they don't understand that there is a bit that needs
doing.
So as
the early 21st century waxes-on, we've seen the OFITTHs all starting
to get
to the age where they start giving-up and withdrawing, and the
people my
age are too busy enjoying themselves in the air to put in hard-time
on the
ground to grow the sport.
That'll change. We're in a transition
phase we've never needed to face
before. We'll get through it
eventually.
I spoke to someone from a Northern SA club over dinner in
the Waikerie
pub one night -- His club has been in decline for years, and I
said, "You
have a town with a population of 25,000 right next door.
Why can't
you recruit from there? You only need a handful of new
members to make
the club sustainable...!"
His response was something
like, "I've done my bit. I don't care anymore.
If the club folds
that's ok with me, as long as I can still fly somewhere
I'll be
happy." And now he's a member at Waikerie, over 250km away,
even
though he has a club on its last legs ten minutes drive away from his
house.
That club will die (if it hasn't already).
I wonder how much
of the stasis of the GFA is driven by that mindset.
> GFA could
either set up one or more social enterprises to fund
> worthwhile
activities to increase memberships or it could combine the 2
> eg run a
centre that makes money and attracts new members.
$400,000 for an
airfield-sized paddock close-ish to a city; Another
$100,000 for
structures like hangars, bar, accommodation; $500,000 on a
shiny new
fleet and an old Pawnee...
Easily a million dollars in start-up costs
to do what you're proposing,
which would completely wipe out GFA's cash
reserve. And if it doesn't
make enough money to pay its employees'
wages, and turns into a commercial
failure, what does it get us?
I
repeat what I said in my last message to you, Mark: If someone wants
to
sink money into a business like that, there's nothing stopping
them. But
the GFA is the wrong organization to do it. You don't
see CASA running
flying schools; You won't see GFA running a
professional gliding operation
either.
> Now before anyone
flames me and tells me this would send GFA broke I
> would ask that
people take the blinkers off and let all the ideas flow
> freely if
they are really interested in making gliding a growth sport.
You're
creating a false dichotomy, Mark: You're implying that anyone
who
doesn't agree with your idea isn't interested in making gliding a
growth
sport. Which is bullshit really, isn't it?
I think you'll find
that many people are interested in growing gliding,
even though they can't
see your idea working (many others aren't, and
there are lots in the middle
who just don't care either way).
Commercial gliding ventures have been
unsuccessfully attempted at various
places around Australia already.
The fact that the landscape isn't
dotted with with in 2005 should tell you
something about the quality of
their outcomes. It's a model which
simply doesn't work. Given a choice
between a club and a professional
op, Australians tend to choose the club.
That alone should tell you that
your personal preferences for professional
uniformed instructors and shiny
new-car-smell fleets aren't universally
(or even widely) held.
I'm
not interested in hearing about how it works in the US, for
two
reasons: (1) the US doesn't have a club scene like we do, and
that
changes the economic dynamics of the system in some profound
ways; and
(2) gliding activity in the US is declining a hell of a lot
faster than
it is in Australia, so I'm not sure that it's a good idea to
emulate
whatever it is that they're doing.
> The NFP sector in
Australia and the USA is the fastest growing sector of
> the
economy,
Right, you've lost me here. I simply will not believe
that statement
unless you're able to show some independent research to back
it up.
Furthermore, the dot-com boom should have taught us all that
"fastest growing"
isn't a useful metric. Going from zero in the bank
to one dollar in the
bank is INFINITE GROWTH! but not actually
interesting.
> so how come GFA is content with no growth? We are
becoming
> increasingly richer as a society and looking for places to
spend our
> leisure money,
We aren't getting richer as a
society. We're buying shiny imported
consumer goods by going into
debt. Savings are at or near an all-time
low. National credit
card debt is ridiculous. The affluence of our
country is almost
totally based on the continued inflation of the
property market and
artificially low interest rates, which allow
people to borrow against
equity and go into ever-increasing amounts
of debt. Wage growth has
almost all been concentrated at the big-end
of town, with almost nothing
over the last ten years for middle-income
earners (and the small amount of
growth that's present in the stats
has largely been arrived at by
redefining what we mean when we say
"Middle-Income Earner").
As a
society, at a macroeconomic level we're becoming asset-rich,
cash-poor, and
we're having to work ever-harder to service the interest
on the debt we've
used to get there.
Any plans for the future growth of gliding (or, for
that matter, the
future growth of -anything-) need to accept that
reality. Assume
near-stagnant economic growth and make plans based on
that for the
forseeable future. Anything else is financially
irresponsible given
the environment we're in at the moment.
> GFA
should be out there getting more then its fair share
> of the market.
How come glider activity is far higher per head of
> population in some
European nations despite the far poorer weather and
> ATC
issues?
Because they earn Euros and spend Euros to buy their
fleets. A glider
is cheaper to acquire, cheaper to operate. The
public image is so much
nicer because the climate mitigates against
horrible dust-bowl airfields
in the middle of nowhere. The climate is
more forgiving on their equipment
so it lasts longer and can be amortized
over longer timescales. Other
forms of recreation are a lot more
expensive than they are here due
largely due to land costs (when you join a
local soccer club your
membership dues need to finance rent on the club's
pitch and clubrooms,
which are likely to be in prime city real-estate areas
and
valued in the millions -- so membership won't be cheap).
In
Australia we earn aussie dollars, but we have to buy gliders with
Euros
then import them, which means a new glider costs about as much as a
new
house, whereas in Europe it's more like the cost of a luxury car or
a boat.
That sets either the baseline cost or the baseline quality
of
facilities: We can either have new gliders which are too expensive
for
most people to fly (which is why commercial operations fail), or
old
cheap gliders which commercial ops wouldn't want to buy but which
clubs
are perfectly happy with. Those who are financially
well-endowed can
buy new gliders, but nobody except them will fly them 'til
then sell them
20 years from now.
Again, these are the realities of
the situation, one of the constraints
on the landscape. There's lots
of room to move, lots of space for imagination
and innovation, but if you
sink money into an enterprise which ignores
these foundations you'll just
lose it, and that's that. Gliding works
as a part of a larger economy
and a larger regulatory environment, and
they work together in this country
to produce gliding clubs made up out
of enthusiasts rather than gliding
companies made up out of professionals.
> One last point, GFA almost
has a monopoly over gliding and monopolies
> generally have the
following features; nil or low growth, lack of
> innovation if not
outright stifling of innovation, strong resistance to
> change,
inability to attract and keep the best staff, over priced
> products
and services, poor customer service. Does the GFA have some or
> most
of these features?
The GFA is a regulator. You're trying to liken
it to a provider of
products and services. The analogy doesn't
fit.
> I would love to see the GFA leading a dynamic and growing
glider
> movement but I can't see that happening with the current
strategies.
> Comments?
Leading a dynamic and growing glider
movement isn't the GFA's job.
What you're suggesting is akin to expecting
the South Australian
Chamber of Commerce to run a department store ("It's
commerce, isn't
it?").
The engine of growth is in the clubs.
The problem gliding in Australia
faces is that many of the clubs don't care
anymore, and are perfectly
happy to fold-up and die; And the ones who
aren't folding up and dying
often have unrealistic expectations about what
the GFA is supposed to do
to help them grow.
Solve those problems,
and gliding will start growing again.
-
mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I
tried an internal
modem,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
but it hurt when I
walked.
Mark Newton
----- Voice: +61-4-1620-2223 ------------- Fax: +61-8-82231777
-----
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring
mailing list
[email protected]
To
check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
|
