SAA vs. EAA

[Smitty]

Just curious as to impressions of the SAA. I recently recieved a
letter from the EAA soliciting donations signed by Rutan and Melville
with a postcard of SS1. While I don't mean to belittle the
achievements of either of these 2 gentlemen, I do find it disturbing
that the EAA has chosen to solicit funds not unlike the NRA and other
mega organisations.

Not that many years ago the EAA started the EAA Foundation to foster
grassroots education. The Young Easgles and several other programs
began life under that banner if memory serves correctly. Recently,
the Foundation was rolled back into EAA including all of it's assets.
I'm unsure of what they might have been, but I seem to recall seeing
several aircraft sitting in and around the Foundation hangar on the
far side of the airport fromt he show gounds. I'm seriously giving
thought to stopping my membership in the EAA after this year and
looking into the SAA. I'd like to hear others thoughts on this.

[Ron Natalie]

Smitty wrote:
> Just curious as to impressions of the SAA. I recently recieved a
> letter from the EAA soliciting donations signed by Rutan and Melville
> with a postcard of SS1. While I don't mean to belittle the
> achievements of either of these 2 gentlemen, I do find it disturbing
> that the EAA has chosen to solicit funds not unlike the NRA and other
> mega organisations.

So what is new? Do you think that your EAA membership covers all the
expenses of what the EAA does?

>
> Not that many years ago the EAA started the EAA Foundation to foster
> grassroots education.

I don't know what you mean by "not that many years ago." The Foundation
has been around since almost the begining of the EAA. It got it's non-profit
status in 1962.

> Recently,
> the Foundation was rolled back into EAA including all of it's assets.
> I'm unsure of what they might have been, but I seem to recall seeing
> several aircraft sitting in and around the Foundation hangar on the
> far side of the airport fromt he show gounds. I'm seriously giving
> thought to stopping my membership in the EAA after this year and
> looking into the SAA. I'd like to hear others thoughts on this.

Not heard that, but really the distiction between the Association
and the Foundation was always one to satisfy the federal regulatory
issues.

[Dave Hyde]

Ron Natalie wrote...

> Do you think that your EAA membership covers all the
> expenses of what the EAA does?

I doubt it. Do you know how much the officers are paid,
by chance?

Dave 'honest question' Hyde

[jls]

"Dave Hyde" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Natalie wrote...
>
> > Do you think that your EAA membership covers all the
> > expenses of what the EAA does?
>
> I doubt it. Do you know how much the officers are paid,
> by chance?
>
> Dave 'honest question' Hyde
>

I think they're ashamed to say.

[TaxSrv]

" jls" wrote:
> > I doubt it. Do you know how much the officers are paid,
> > by chance?
>
> I think they're ashamed to say.

Ashamed or not, they must by law place this info into the public
record. For the YE 2/28/03, EAA paid Tom Poberezny $188,080 plus a
pension contribution. Other officers were not compensated. The 5
highest paid executives were paid between $94K and $164K, none of whom
appear related to the Poberezny's. From the EAA Aviation Foundation
(museum, educational activities, and recipient of gifts/bequests), Tom
P. was paid $190,081 plus pension contr, with other officers similarly
unpaid but various other compensated executives.

Fred F.

[Ron Natalie]

Dave Hyde wrote:
> Ron Natalie wrote...
>
>
>>Do you think that your EAA membership covers all the
>>expenses of what the EAA does?
>
>
> I doubt it. Do you know how much the officers are paid,
> by chance?
>
I got inquired about this a few years back. The rumor
was Poberezny was making over half a mil, but my insiders
at the EAA HQ say it's less than half that. Of course, the
fringes are pretty good (makes up for having to live in
Wisconsin in the winter).

[Matt Whiting]

TaxSrv wrote:

> " jls" wrote:
>
>>>I doubt it. Do you know how much the officers are paid,
>>>by chance?
>>
>>I think they're ashamed to say.
>
>
> Ashamed or not, they must by law place this info into the public
> record. For the YE 2/28/03, EAA paid Tom Poberezny $188,080 plus a
> pension contribution. Other officers were not compensated. The 5
> highest paid executives were paid between $94K and $164K, none of whom
> appear related to the Poberezny's. From the EAA Aviation Foundation
> (museum, educational activities, and recipient of gifts/bequests), Tom
> P. was paid $190,081 plus pension contr, with other officers similarly
> unpaid but various other compensated executives.
>
> Fred F.
>

That's one reason I dropped my EAA membership a few years ago. The
salaries are not at all in line.

Matt

[Kyle Boatright]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> TaxSrv wrote:
>
>> " jls" wrote:
>>
>>>>I doubt it. Do you know how much the officers are paid,
>>>>by chance?
>>>
>>>I think they're ashamed to say.
>>
>>
>> Ashamed or not, they must by law place this info into the public
>> record. For the YE 2/28/03, EAA paid Tom Poberezny $188,080 plus a
>> pension contribution. Other officers were not compensated. The 5
>> highest paid executives were paid between $94K and $164K, none of whom
>> appear related to the Poberezny's. From the EAA Aviation Foundation
>> (museum, educational activities, and recipient of gifts/bequests), Tom
>> P. was paid $190,081 plus pension contr, with other officers similarly
>> unpaid but various other compensated executives.
>>
>> Fred F.
>>
>
> That's one reason I dropped my EAA membership a few years ago. The
> salaries are not at all in line.
>
> Matt

In line with what? Depending on your industry/role/etc, there are plenty of
jobs out there that pay well over $100k. I'm not saying it is a good thing
for folks working at a non-profit to rake in the bucks, but it isn't like
these guys get stock options, etc. like lots of folks in the corporate world
do...

KB

[Matt Whiting]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>TaxSrv wrote:
>>
>>
>>>" jls" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I doubt it. Do you know how much the officers are paid,
>>>>>by chance?
>>>>
>>>>I think they're ashamed to say.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ashamed or not, they must by law place this info into the public
>>>record. For the YE 2/28/03, EAA paid Tom Poberezny $188,080 plus a
>>>pension contribution. Other officers were not compensated. The 5
>>>highest paid executives were paid between $94K and $164K, none of whom
>>>appear related to the Poberezny's. From the EAA Aviation Foundation
>>>(museum, educational activities, and recipient of gifts/bequests), Tom
>>>P. was paid $190,081 plus pension contr, with other officers similarly
>>>unpaid but various other compensated executives.
>>>
>>>Fred F.
>>>
>>
>>That's one reason I dropped my EAA membership a few years ago. The
>>salaries are not at all in line.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> In line with what? Depending on your industry/role/etc, there are plenty of
> jobs out there that pay well over $100k. I'm not saying it is a good thing
> for folks working at a non-profit to rake in the bucks, but it isn't like
> these guys get stock options, etc. like lots of folks in the corporate world
> do...
>
> KB
>
>

Most folks in the corporate world (not all as we all know!) have fairly
well documented performance objectives that they must hit to make their
money. I'd like to see Tom's performance objectives.


Matt

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:58:54 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>Kyle Boatright wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>TaxSrv wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>" jls" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I doubt it. Do you know how much the officers are paid,
>>>>>>by chance?
>>>>>
>>>>>I think they're ashamed to say.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ashamed or not, they must by law place this info into the public
>>>>record. For the YE 2/28/03, EAA paid Tom Poberezny $188,080 plus a
>>>>pension contribution. Other officers were not compensated. The 5
>>>>highest paid executives were paid between $94K and $164K, none of whom
>>>>appear related to the Poberezny's. From the EAA Aviation Foundation
>>>>(museum, educational activities, and recipient of gifts/bequests), Tom
>>>>P. was paid $190,081 plus pension contr, with other officers similarly
>>>>unpaid but various other compensated executives.
>>>>
>>>>Fred F.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's one reason I dropped my EAA membership a few years ago. The
>>>salaries are not at all in line.
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>
>> In line with what? Depending on your industry/role/etc, there are plenty of
>> jobs out there that pay well over $100k. I'm not saying it is a good thing
>> for folks working at a non-profit to rake in the bucks, but it isn't like
>> these guys get stock options, etc. like lots of folks in the corporate world
>> do...
>>
>> KB
>>
>>
>
>Most folks in the corporate world (not all as we all know!) have fairly
>well documented performance objectives that they must hit to make their
>money. I'd like to see Tom's performance objectives.
>
>
>Matt
>
Most folks in the cororate world aren't getting rich off the backs of
volunteers just out to better their passion for aviation

[Scott]

All who complain about Tom's wages, it sounds like jealousy. What does
the CEO of Halliburton or Enron make? I BET it's more than $188K. I
don't really see it as Tom getting rich off the backs of volunteers,
though. EAA has a lot of paid employees beside Tom. The reason they
need volunteers is because they don't have enough staff to effectively
do all the stuff needed for the annual convention. They have to help
hundreds of thousands of people in that one week. I also don't think
Tom just sits behind his desk all day looking at pretty pictures on the
wall. He does lobby for general aviation interests and these days, I'll
BET that's a full time job plus. I still miss Paul as head of EAA as I
find him MUCH more personable and genuinely interested in us little
guys, but Paul couldn't do it forever...

Scott


Drew Dalgleish wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:58:54 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>TaxSrv wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>" jls" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I doubt it. Do you know how much the officers are paid,
>>>>>>>by chance?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think they're ashamed to say.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ashamed or not, they must by law place this info into the public
>>>>>record. For the YE 2/28/03, EAA paid Tom Poberezny $188,080 plus a
>>>>>pension contribution. Other officers were not compensated. The 5
>>>>>highest paid executives were paid between $94K and $164K, none of whom
>>>>>appear related to the Poberezny's. From the EAA Aviation Foundation
>>>>>(museum, educational activities, and recipient of gifts/bequests), Tom
>>>>>P. was paid $190,081 plus pension contr, with other officers similarly
>>>>>unpaid but various other compensated executives.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fred F.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's one reason I dropped my EAA membership a few years ago. The
>>>>salaries are not at all in line.
>>>>
>>>>Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>In line with what? Depending on your industry/role/etc, there are plenty of
>>>jobs out there that pay well over $100k. I'm not saying it is a good thing
>>>for folks working at a non-profit to rake in the bucks, but it isn't like
>>>these guys get stock options, etc. like lots of folks in the corporate world
>>>do...
>>>
>>>KB
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Most folks in the corporate world (not all as we all know!) have fairly
>>well documented performance objectives that they must hit to make their
>>money. I'd like to see Tom's performance objectives.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> Most folks in the cororate world aren't getting rich off the backs of
> volunteers just out to better their passion for aviation

[Dave Hyde]

Scott wrote...

> All who complain about Tom's wages, it sounds like jealousy.

I'm not complaining, I'm trying to make an informed decision.
Do you know how much he's paid? Where can I find it in the
annual report to the membership?

Dave 'paperhangar' Hyde

[Matt Whiting]

Scott wrote:

> All who complain about Tom's wages, it sounds like jealousy. What does
> the CEO of Halliburton or Enron make? I BET it's more than $188K. I
> don't really see it as Tom getting rich off the backs of volunteers,
> though. EAA has a lot of paid employees beside Tom. The reason they
> need volunteers is because they don't have enough staff to effectively
> do all the stuff needed for the annual convention. They have to help
> hundreds of thousands of people in that one week. I also don't think
> Tom just sits behind his desk all day looking at pretty pictures on the
> wall. He does lobby for general aviation interests and these days, I'll
> BET that's a full time job plus. I still miss Paul as head of EAA as I
> find him MUCH more personable and genuinely interested in us little
> guys, but Paul couldn't do it forever...

After being in AOPA for many years and then EAA for many years, I found
AOPA MUCH more effective in the area of lobbying so I've stuck with them
adn dropped EAA. I'm sure Boyer makes a pretty penny as well, but it
sure seems that AOPA is FAR more effective in lobbying than EAA. I just
didn't see much value from my EAA membership as opposed to AOPA.


Matt

[Stealth Pilot]

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 06:53:29 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:


>
>After being in AOPA for many years and then EAA for many years, I found
>AOPA MUCH more effective in the area of lobbying so I've stuck with them
>adn dropped EAA. I'm sure Boyer makes a pretty penny as well, but it
>sure seems that AOPA is FAR more effective in lobbying than EAA. I just
>didn't see much value from my EAA membership as opposed to AOPA.
>

that is probably because you joined for the wrong reason.

now if you were a homebuilder trying to find out whether canadian
yellow cedar was suitable for carving propellors you'd find AOPA
totally bloody useless.

Stealth Pilot

[Frank Stutzman]

Stealth Pilot > wrote:

> now if you were a homebuilder trying to find out whether canadian
> yellow cedar was suitable for carving propellors you'd find AOPA
> totally bloody useless.

Uhh, with the exception of some *VERY* old reprints of of the experimenter
and some of the old EAA codgers around here, I'd have to say that the EAA
was just as useless as the AOPA for such information.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[TaxSrv]

"Dave Hyde" wrote:
>
> I'm not complaining, I'm trying to make an informed decision.
> Do you know how much he's paid? Where can I find it in the
> annual report to the membership?

The annual report to membership has little detail, but you can find it
their IRS Forms 990 which are a public record. One online source is
guidestar.org. Tom P., for the fiscal year ending in '03, received a
total of $378,161, plus $55,884 in retirement plan contributions, from
two of the several nonprofit corporations comprising "EAA." This
amount is consistent with prior years also.

Fred F.

[Matt Whiting]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 06:53:29 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>After being in AOPA for many years and then EAA for many years, I found
>>AOPA MUCH more effective in the area of lobbying so I've stuck with them
>>adn dropped EAA. I'm sure Boyer makes a pretty penny as well, but it
>>sure seems that AOPA is FAR more effective in lobbying than EAA. I just
>>didn't see much value from my EAA membership as opposed to AOPA.
>>
>
>
> that is probably because you joined for the wrong reason.
>
> now if you were a homebuilder trying to find out whether canadian
> yellow cedar was suitable for carving propellors you'd find AOPA
> totally bloody useless.
>
> Stealth Pilot

True, but I found EAA not all that useful for homebuilding either. I,
despite the recent claims here, find Kitplanes more useful than Sport
Pilot, or whatever the EAA rag is called these days.


Matt

[Scott]

I don't believe specific wages are published in the annual reports.
Wages are set by the Board of Directors and should be in the Bylaws.
Members should be able to view corporate documents during normal
business hours or by making a request and paying for photocopies.

Here are a few links to see what some Corporate Officers are paid:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=HAL (Halliburton)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=XEL (Xcel Energy)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=F (Ford Motor Company)

Dave, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but what kind of informed decision
are you having to make? Are you deciding what organizations to belong
to based on CEO salary rather than what the organization itself stands
for and the services they provide to the members?

Scott


Dave Hyde wrote:
> Scott wrote...
>
>
>>All who complain about Tom's wages, it sounds like jealousy.
>
>
> I'm not complaining, I'm trying to make an informed decision.
> Do you know how much he's paid? Where can I find it in the
> annual report to the membership?
>
> Dave 'paperhangar' Hyde
>
>
>
>

[Scott]

Fair enough! I was in AOPA many years back and I thought they catered
more to the high performance and twin engine crowd (neither of which I
belong to). For ME, EAA is still the closest thing to the type of
flying I do. I haven't checked on AOPA recently, so maybe they have
started having more articles about Cubs, Champs, RV-4s, VPs, Quicksilver
MXs, etc.

Scott

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Scott wrote:
>
>> All who complain about Tom's wages, it sounds like jealousy. What
>> does the CEO of Halliburton or Enron make? I BET it's more than
>> $188K. I don't really see it as Tom getting rich off the backs of
>> volunteers, though. EAA has a lot of paid employees beside Tom. The
>> reason they need volunteers is because they don't have enough staff to
>> effectively do all the stuff needed for the annual convention. They
>> have to help hundreds of thousands of people in that one week. I also
>> don't think Tom just sits behind his desk all day looking at pretty
>> pictures on the wall. He does lobby for general aviation interests
>> and these days, I'll BET that's a full time job plus. I still miss
>> Paul as head of EAA as I find him MUCH more personable and genuinely
>> interested in us little guys, but Paul couldn't do it forever...
>
>
> After being in AOPA for many years and then EAA for many years, I found
> AOPA MUCH more effective in the area of lobbying so I've stuck with them
> adn dropped EAA. I'm sure Boyer makes a pretty penny as well, but it
> sure seems that AOPA is FAR more effective in lobbying than EAA. I just
> didn't see much value from my EAA membership as opposed to AOPA.
>
>
> Matt
>

[sleepy6]

Scott wrote:
>
> All who complain about Tom's wages, it sounds like jealousy. What
> does the CEO of Halliburton or Enron make? I BET it's more than
> $188K.

For one thing, The $188K is only part of it. He also gets a pile from
other affiliated EAA foundations etc. Don't forget the retirement,
health and other benefits plus a huge expense account:)

You can't really believe that running the EAA is anywhere near the
responsibility of the CEO of Haliburton or Enron do you? Start looking
at much smaller companies which have simular cash flows and simular
numbers of employees. Even there, Tom has less responsibility because
his decisions involve much less risk. A bad CEO decision can bankrupt
a company. A bad decision by Tom is at worst a setback and not the end
of the EAA because the income is almost guarenteed to continue. It's
not a real competitive business that has to take risks to get income.
I think you will find Tom is way overpaid:)

The temporary influx of volenteers doesn't count for much because those
volenteers are managed by other volenteers and by EAA staff that is
already on the payroll anyway. Tom doesn't handle much of that
personally:)

[Mike]

Scott > wrote in message >...
> All who complain about Tom's wages, it sounds like jealousy. What does
> the CEO of Halliburton or Enron make? I BET it's more than $188K.

It is pure foolishness to reason that Tom should get highly reimbursed
because he maintains the title "CEO." If you're such a fan of giving
Tom ~$400k a year, please donate ~$300k a year to the EAA.

What would happen to the EAA and its interests if the organization
decided to cap the total annual package at say $200,000, or $100,000?
Would EAA interests be less-well served? What is your evidence to
suggest that these interests would suffer?

[Dave Hyde]

Scott wrote...

> Dave, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but what kind of informed decision
> are you having to make?

Whether to send my money to the EAA or elsewhere.
Whether I think they use the money I've sent wisely.

> Are you deciding what organizations to belong to based on
> CEO salary rather than what the organization itself stands
> for and the services they provide to the members?

Who said anything about the "rather than" part? Don't
read more into my question than I put there.

Dave 'strawman' Hyde

[Scott]

I'm not saying the interests would suffer. The Board of Directors set
the pay for Tom. If you are unhappy with what they offer him, show up
at the annual member's meeting and cast your vote. If you send in your
proxy, you are allowing someone else to vote on your behalf. Would you
head EAA for $100K per year? Would you head it for $300K? Can you say
yes? I thought you could.

Scott


Mike wrote:
> Scott > wrote in message >...
>
>>All who complain about Tom's wages, it sounds like jealousy. What does
>>the CEO of Halliburton or Enron make? I BET it's more than $188K.
>
>
> It is pure foolishness to reason that Tom should get highly reimbursed
> because he maintains the title "CEO." If you're such a fan of giving
> Tom ~$400k a year, please donate ~$300k a year to the EAA.
>
> What would happen to the EAA and its interests if the organization
> decided to cap the total annual package at say $200,000, or $100,000?
> Would EAA interests be less-well served? What is your evidence to
> suggest that these interests would suffer?

[Scott]

Dave,
All you offered was "making an informed decision" based on salary. I
took it that you were implying that you would decide on EAA or some
other organization, presumably SAA, based on salary of the CEO since
that was all that has been mentioned in this thread. Job duties of said
CEO has yet to be mentioned in this thread. I defy anyone to say they
would turn down Tom's job based solely on its associated salary +
benefits if offered to them...

Scott


Dave Hyde wrote:

> Scott wrote...
>
>
>>Dave, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but what kind of informed decision
>>are you having to make?
>
>
> Whether to send my money to the EAA or elsewhere.
> Whether I think they use the money I've sent wisely.
>
>
>>Are you deciding what organizations to belong to based on
>>CEO salary rather than what the organization itself stands
>>for and the services they provide to the members?
>
>
> Who said anything about the "rather than" part? Don't
> read more into my question than I put there.
>
> Dave 'strawman' Hyde
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Juan Jimenez]

I wouldn't even consider it. Too damn cold, way too much cheese. I mean, who
in their right mind would call a salad piled high with cheddar "health
food"? :)

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> Dave,
> All you offered was "making an informed decision" based on salary. I took
> it that you were implying that you would decide on EAA or some other
> organization, presumably SAA, based on salary of the CEO since that was
> all that has been mentioned in this thread. Job duties of said CEO has
> yet to be mentioned in this thread. I defy anyone to say they would turn
> down Tom's job based solely on its associated salary + benefits if offered
> to them...
>
> Scott
>
>
> Dave Hyde wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote...
>>
>>
>>>Dave, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but what kind of informed decision
>>>are you having to make?
>>
>>
>> Whether to send my money to the EAA or elsewhere.
>> Whether I think they use the money I've sent wisely.
>>
>>
>>>Are you deciding what organizations to belong to based on
>>>CEO salary rather than what the organization itself stands
>>>for and the services they provide to the members?
>>
>>
>> Who said anything about the "rather than" part? Don't
>> read more into my question than I put there.
>>
>> Dave 'strawman' Hyde
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

[Dave Hyde]

Scott...

> I took it that you were implying that you would decide on EAA or some
> other organization, presumably SAA, based on salary of the CEO since
> that was all that has been mentioned in this thread.

You read *way* too much into my question.

Dave 'one-liner' Hyde

[Dave Hyde]

Scott...

> If you are unhappy with what they offer him, show up
> at the annual member's meeting and cast your vote.

Or look for another alternative. There's nothing
that requires continued support of an organization if
you disagree with the direction they've taken.

Dave 'break right' Hyde

[Rich S.]

"Scott" wrote in message
>
> If you are unhappy with what they offer him, show up at the annual
> member's meeting and cast your vote.

This has little effect when the Board of Directors has set up the voting
procedure to reap all the apathetic votes. We all know it. Don't try a snow
job.

Rich "I don't care, wins again" S.

[Matt Whiting]

Scott wrote:

> I'm not saying the interests would suffer. The Board of Directors set
> the pay for Tom. If you are unhappy with what they offer him, show up
> at the annual member's meeting and cast your vote. If you send in your
> proxy, you are allowing someone else to vote on your behalf. Would you
> head EAA for $100K per year? Would you head it for $300K? Can you say
> yes? I thought you could.

BOD elections are heavily stacked in favor of the incumbents. It is
very hard to get your name on the ballot as the nominating committee is
comprised of, you guessed it, existing board members typically.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dave Hyde wrote:

> Scott...
>
>
>>If you are unhappy with what they offer him, show up
>>at the annual member's meeting and cast your vote.
>
>
> Or look for another alternative. There's nothing
> that requires continued support of an organization if
> you disagree with the direction they've taken.

Yep, that's what I did. I dropped my EAA membership years ago...
Haven't missed it.


Matt

[Scott]

I stand corrected ;)

Scott


Juan Jimenez wrote:
> I wouldn't even consider it. Too damn cold, way too much cheese. I mean, who
> in their right mind would call a salad piled high with cheddar "health
> food"? :)
>


I defy anyone to say they would turn
>>down Tom's job based solely on its associated salary + benefits if offered
>>to them...
>>
>>Scott
>>
>>
>>Dave Hyde wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Scott wrote...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dave, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but what kind of informed decision
>>>>are you having to make?
>>>
>>>
>>>Whether to send my money to the EAA or elsewhere.
>>>Whether I think they use the money I've sent wisely.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Are you deciding what organizations to belong to based on
>>>>CEO salary rather than what the organization itself stands
>>>>for and the services they provide to the members?
>>>
>>>
>>>Who said anything about the "rather than" part? Don't
>>>read more into my question than I put there.
>>>
>>>Dave 'strawman' Hyde

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

[Scott]

Absolutely correct. I couldn't have said it better. If people aren't
happy with the wages, there is nothing forcing them to support them...

Scott



Dave Hyde wrote:

> Scott...
>
>
>>If you are unhappy with what they offer him, show up
>>at the annual member's meeting and cast your vote.
>
>
> Or look for another alternative. There's nothing
> that requires continued support of an organization if
> you disagree with the direction they've taken.
>
> Dave 'break right' Hyde
>
>
>

[Scott]

My point exactly. Apathetic voters can't bitch about the leadership,
whether leader of EAA or leader of the United States...if we don't vote
(in person rather than by giving our vote to someone by proxy) we
don't really have much say about the outcome. I don't think the voting
was set up to "rig" the outcome, but since it's a national and
international organization, could EAA expect enough members to show up
at the annual meeting to cast votes?

Scott


Rich S. wrote:


>
>
> This has little effect when the Board of Directors has set up the voting
> procedure to reap all the apathetic votes. We all know it. Don't try a snow
> job.
>
> Rich "I don't care, wins again" S.
>
>

[Roger]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:57:19 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>Scott wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying the interests would suffer. The Board of Directors set
>> the pay for Tom. If you are unhappy with what they offer him, show up
>> at the annual member's meeting and cast your vote. If you send in your
>> proxy, you are allowing someone else to vote on your behalf. Would you
>> head EAA for $100K per year? Would you head it for $300K? Can you say
>> yes? I thought you could.

I turned down a nice <sarcasm mode on>cushy </sarcasm mode> project
manager's job working 12 to 16 hours a day that paid one whale of a
*lot* more than that. I even offered to organize the thing and help
some one to run it, but they didn't want that and I told them I
retired so I didn't have to work those kind of hours.
Actually it was a pretty good job.

Thing is, the job was doing exactly what I'd been doing the previous
two and a half years (prior to retirement), but for a different
company. It was even the same software vendor and reps and many times
the salary.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>BOD elections are heavily stacked in favor of the incumbents. It is
>very hard to get your name on the ballot as the nominating committee is
>comprised of, you guessed it, existing board members typically.
>
>
>Matt

[Dave Hyde]

Scott wrote...

> Would you head EAA for $100K per year? Would you
> head it for $300K?

I don't equate willingness to accept a high salary with
willingness to donate money so that someone else can.

> Can you say yes? I thought you could.

Speak for yourself. Don't need it, don't want it.

Dave 'wing of fortune' Hyde

[Ron Natalie]

Smitty wrote:
> They've done
> similar things in the past.
>
I think they did a smilar thing ONCE. There wasn't a whole lot
of response. The Bowers Fly Baby was the result.

Aircraft Spruce held a design contest in 1997 but declined to
award any prizes despite the submission of several designs.

[RST Engineering]

Well, let me weigh in on that one. EAA had a competition some years ago for
a "safety related" design. I submitted a low-fuel ("bingo") light that
would come on when you had half an hour of fuel remaining in the tanks.
Another colleague of mine submitted a particularly clever electronic angle
of attack indicator that could be made for peanuts. There were several
other entries, most of them pretty good stuff.

The prize was a brand new Lycoming O-235. My intention, if I won, was to
auction the engine off and donate 50% of the proceeds to the Voyager
project, then in the final stages of testing.

Well, wouldn't you know it? The EAA inexplicably "extended" the deadline
for filing, and lo and behold, one of the EAA directors submitted a book
during the extension. The book was, by any reasonable standard, a
hodge-podge of "how to fly safely" tips that would probably, in any college
classroom, be examined closely for plagiarism.

Would you care to guess who won, and who just happened to need an O-235 for
his current project?

Jim



How about the EAA offer a competition for a
> plans built 2 place airplane to suit the catagory? They've done
> similar things in the past.

[jls]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, let me weigh in on that one. EAA had a competition some years ago
for
> a "safety related" design. I submitted a low-fuel ("bingo") light that
> would come on when you had half an hour of fuel remaining in the tanks.
> Another colleague of mine submitted a particularly clever electronic angle
> of attack indicator that could be made for peanuts. There were several
> other entries, most of them pretty good stuff.
>
> The prize was a brand new Lycoming O-235. My intention, if I won, was to
> auction the engine off and donate 50% of the proceeds to the Voyager
> project, then in the final stages of testing.
>
> Well, wouldn't you know it? The EAA inexplicably "extended" the deadline
> for filing, and lo and behold, one of the EAA directors submitted a book
> during the extension. The book was, by any reasonable standard, a
> hodge-podge of "how to fly safely" tips that would probably, in any
college
> classroom, be examined closely for plagiarism.
>
> Would you care to guess who won, and who just happened to need an O-235
for
> his current project?
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> How about the EAA offer a competition for a
> > plans built 2 place airplane to suit the catagory? They've done
> > similar things in the past.

Crooked muhfuggers; they wouldn't steal a red-hot stove. Another reason to
quit paying dues. They're ASHAMED to tell just exactly what their officers
and directors collect and from what sources among all their interlocking
directorates and layered subsidiaries.

The aXXholes took our chapter off the official website because one of our
officers was slack paying his dues-- and didn't even give us notice about
it.

Every time I criticised one of their gilded cronies, the nabob twirp who
bought New Gasair and his shyster toady who runs this shabby little plastic
and litigation mill, I caught hell from Ed Wischmeyer, who I found out later
(especially from pictures showing them all together for a photo op) was
another one of their toe-sucking toadies.

[David Bridgham]

"RST Engineering" > writes:

> Another colleague of mine submitted a particularly clever electronic angle
> of attack indicator that could be made for peanuts.

I'm intrigued. Do you know if the information on this AoA indicator
system is available? Not that I'm not interested in your low fuel
detector as well.

-Dave

[RST Engineering]

I'm sure if you wrote EAA and asked for "the AoA project that you screwed a
good designer out of" that they would be overjoyed to provide you a copy of
the design.

Jim

"David Bridgham" > wrote in message
...
> "RST Engineering" > writes:
>
>> Another colleague of mine submitted a particularly clever electronic
>> angle
>> of attack indicator that could be made for peanuts.
>
> I'm intrigued. Do you know if the information on this AoA indicator
> system is available? Not that I'm not interested in your low fuel
> detector as well.
>
> -Dave
>

[Smitty]

Jim, in light of your response, did you have to sign a waiver of
rights to the design that you submitted? It sounds as though that
might be what happened. Could you maybe "redesign" it so that it
would be marketable? I'm getting a really bad feeling about EAA in
it's present format.

Now, can anyone comment on the SAA?

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:23:53 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>I'm sure if you wrote EAA and asked for "the AoA project that you screwed a
>good designer out of" that they would be overjoyed to provide you a copy of
>the design.
>
>Jim
>
>"David Bridgham" > wrote in message
...
>> "RST Engineering" > writes:
>>
>>> Another colleague of mine submitted a particularly clever electronic
>>> angle
>>> of attack indicator that could be made for peanuts.
>>
>> I'm intrigued. Do you know if the information on this AoA indicator
>> system is available? Not that I'm not interested in your low fuel
>> detector as well.
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>

[gbwiz]

If you bottled EAA and the homebuilt aircraft movement circa 1960, put
it in a time capsule and brought it out today... that's kinda what SAA
would look like, except Paul Poberezny is looking a few years older
now.

It's very much a "throwback to the good ol' days" kind of club and
there's nothing wrong with that but if you're interested in the here
and now, I wouldn't recommend it.

[Ernest Christley]

gbwiz wrote:
> If you bottled EAA and the homebuilt aircraft movement circa 1960, put
> it in a time capsule and brought it out today... that's kinda what SAA
> would look like, except Paul Poberezny is looking a few years older
> now.
>
> It's very much a "throwback to the good ol' days" kind of club and
> there's nothing wrong with that but if you're interested in the here
> and now, I wouldn't recommend it.
>

I'm sorry, but I wasn't even thought of until around the end of the
60's. Could you describe it in a little more detail? Was it more
involved with actually experimenting and sharing the results, and less
with worshiping bloated egos with expensive commericially built airplanes?

Considering their push for safety, I asked the national chapter about
the feasibility of building a simple wind tunnel sized to fit a typical
homebuilt and only produce a 100mph wind. No need for scientific
accuracy, just a system to provide a controlled liftoff to a tethered
plane. Way to expensive was the spokesman's response.

I'd like to be a member of an organization with a little more vision and
a lot more gusto.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[D. Grunloh]

Smitty wrote:

>
> I'm getting a really bad feeling about EAA in
> it's present format.
>
> Now, can anyone comment on the SAA?

It's not actually comparable to EAA. There is no chapter network,
no formal support structure. There is a nice magazine. They are
not out to make a big impact on sport aviation. It's a bunch of
old timers and grass roots type that get together once a year
at a fly-in. Maybe they will have more.

I joined and support SAA because it's my way to say thanks
to Paul and because the flyin is only 40 miles from my airstrip.
I see the SAA as a group of friends and fans of the EAA founder
and folks who support the original idea. There are no vendors
or commercialism at the fly-in. It's completely different than
Oshkosh.


--Dan Grunloh

>
>
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:23:53 -0800, "RST Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >I'm sure if you wrote EAA and asked for "the AoA project that you screwed a
> >good designer out of" that they would be overjoyed to provide you a copy of
> >the design.
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >"David Bridgham" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "RST Engineering" > writes:
> >>
> >>> Another colleague of mine submitted a particularly clever electronic
> >>> angle
> >>> of attack indicator that could be made for peanuts.
> >>
> >> I'm intrigued. Do you know if the information on this AoA indicator
> >> system is available? Not that I'm not interested in your low fuel
> >> detector as well.
> >>
> >> -Dave
> >>
> >