USA: Regional Contest Entry w/ Drop Outs

On Aug 13, 10:24*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
The underlying issue is participation. If 50 people were signed up to
come, losing 10 at the last moment wouldn't be such a big deal. And 50
makes for a much more profitable contest, and a better use of CD,
scorer, and other volunteer time.

I don't have easy answers. Raising fees and more nonrefundable
deposits sounds like a way to get to 6 person contests where everybody
shows up, not very appetizing. How to make contests more appetizing,
so that everyone in the region wants to be there, is the big question

John Cochrane BB

John emphasizes an important point related to this topic. The Rules
subcommittee looks very hard at issues related to participation, cost
being one significant issue. We also know we need to keep organizers
viable.
As to making it appealing, let me note some of the things the
Dansville gang does very well.
Friendly site with no cost camping, showers and lots of room.
Usually 3 organized meals to keep folks together.
Rookie training course for newbies with active coaching- This began at
this site about 20 yr ago.
Very experienced contest staff ensuring good tasking and few if any
glitches.

Barriers to entry- perceived or real(perceived has a significant
affect becoming barrier to real participation) are important and we
all need to look at eliminating or at least reducing them.
It's worth noting that these folks put a good bit of work into getting
ready for this contest and that, plus some money they won't recover,
goes down the drain.
UH

At 14:39 13 August 2009, wrote:
On Aug 13, 10:24=A0am, John Cochrane
wrote:
The underlying issue is participation. If 50 people were signed up to
come, losing 10 at the last moment wouldn't be such a big deal. And
50
makes for a much more profitable contest, and a better use of CD,
scorer, and other volunteer time.

I don't have easy answers. Raising fees and more nonrefundable
deposits sounds like a way to get to 6 person contests where everybody
shows up, not very appetizing. How to make contests more appetizing,
so that everyone in the region wants to be there, is the big question

John Cochrane BB

John emphasizes an important point related to this topic. The Rules
subcommittee looks very hard at issues related to participation, cost
being one significant issue. We also know we need to keep organizers
viable.
As to making it appealing, let me note some of the things the
Dansville gang does very well.
Friendly site with no cost camping, showers and lots of room.
Usually 3 organized meals to keep folks together.
Rookie training course for newbies with active coaching- This began at
this site about 20 yr ago.
Very experienced contest staff ensuring good tasking and few if any
glitches.

Barriers to entry- perceived or real(perceived has a significant
affect becoming barrier to real participation) are important and we
all need to look at eliminating or at least reducing them.
It's worth noting that these folks put a good bit of work into getting
ready for this contest and that, plus some money they won't recover,
goes down the drain.
UH
How can solutions be considered without more research into why the
problem exist? 5U

Ya gotta love it. A few years ago the problem was pilots showing up
unannounced, swamping the organizers with more entries than they had
towplanes or accommodations. The "solution": a late-entry surcharge.

Who could *possibly* have foreseen that...anyone who thinks he/she
*might* want to fly the contest would enter it in order to avoid the
late-entry surcharge and then cancel later (hopefully while still
entitled to a refund) if unable to participate. How rude! I still
remember one senior, highly respected (including by me) Rules
Committee member who brushed off my objections to the proposed late-
entry surcharge by advising me that "all you have to do is send a
postcard advising them of your intent to enter."

People--even pilots--respond fairly predictably to economic incentives/
disincentives. But this isn't Washington. The solution to every
problem isn't a new tax or a new law. We already have a law we should
pay more attention to: the law of unintended consequences. As John
Cochrane opined, these latest knee-jerk reactions are a recipe for 6-
person contests where everyone shows up.

Just my opinion.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

On Aug 19, 10:40*pm, Chip Bearden wrote:
Ya gotta love it. A few years ago the problem was pilots showing up
unannounced, swamping the organizers with more *entries than they had
towplanes or accommodations. The "solution": a late-entry surcharge.

Who could *possibly* have foreseen that...anyone who thinks he/she
*might* want to fly the contest would enter it in order to avoid the
late-entry surcharge and then cancel later (hopefully while still
entitled to a refund) if unable to participate. How rude! I still
remember one senior, highly respected (including by me) Rules
Committee member who brushed off my objections to the proposed late-
entry surcharge by advising me that "all you have to do is send a
postcard advising them of your intent to enter."

People--even pilots--respond fairly predictably to economic incentives/
disincentives. But this isn't Washington. The solution to every
problem isn't a new tax or a new law. We already have a law we should
pay more attention to: the law of unintended consequences. As John
Cochrane opined, these latest knee-jerk reactions are a recipe for 6-
person contests where everyone shows up.

Just my opinion.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

This topic reveals a complex balancing act.
Ensure contests are available to those who want to participate.
Ensure that the organizers provide the infrastructure and resources to
run a fair, safe , and fun contest.
Keep costs "reasonable"(always subjective) for contestants.
Provide for "reasonable" positive balance between costs and income for
organizers.
"Drop ins" can be quite helpful in filling those spaces left by drop
outs.
That said, let describe an example from earlier this year. An
organizer called me 2 weeks before his contest- a nationals, and said
he had about 20-22 confirmed(had deposits) entries, about maybe 18 of
whom had signed up before the close of entry priority 60 days before.
He was hearing by the grapevine that , IF the weather was looking
nice, he might have another 5 or 6 drop in. Sounds like a
windfall ,huh! The real problem for him was that he had tugs arranged
locally based on expected entry, and now he MIGHT have to import
another tug from who knows where at the last minute to have enough
resources to launch within the 1 hour window expected.
This can also extend to water resources, number of folks at welcoming
parties that need to get fed, nunber of chairs and tables to have
available for meetings, tiedown places prepared, towropes needed- the
list gets long. Some of these are things anticipated by the late entry
fee provision.
What would "you" do?
I told this organizer he was under no obligation to accept drop ins
unless he could handle them without messing up what they spent a year
putting into place.
All those of us that have commented about what I call rude behavior
want is for pilots to act in a courteous manner so that organizers are
not put into situations that make them reconsider running contests.
There are no knee jerk actions being considered by the RC, but we hope
there is a way to keep this from becoming a bigger problem. We don't
want to see any more cancelled contests at the last minute which
affest everybody negatively.
UH
SSA Competition Rules Subcommitteee Chair

On Aug 20, 8:43*am, wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:40*pm, Chip Bearden wrote:

What would "you" do?

UH
SSA Competition Rules Subcommitteee Chair- Hide quoted text -


I wouldn't volunteer to run a contest. Ever. I think anyone who does
either needs to have his/her head examined or at minimum be placed on
meds until the temptation passes. :-)

Seriously, if we're talking about unintended consequences, then
consider this. Several local contests lose money and the club
officers or other affected parties decide "enough". Suddenly, there
are only two or 3 super-regional type events that only those with a 92
or above seeding can get into. Or, the towpilots in the region get
word that the contests may not honor their committment to use their
services, so they decide not to participate. Certainly solves the
problems for the "cheapskates" - there's nowhere to race.

It boggles the mind that pilots expect the organizers to take on 100%
of the financial risk for minimal or no reward. I've looked at the
financials from a number of contests, and several of them lost
anywhere from a couple hundred bucks to well over a grand. Were I a
board member in those clubs, I'd certainly be asking some serious
questions about whether this was the right thing for the broader
membership.

So, I for one would gladly pay a reasonable, non-refundable deposit at
every contest. I don't throw away money carelessly, but this is a
matter of principle and long-term survival of regional contests.

Respectfully,
P3

On Aug 13, 7:00*am, Tony Condon
wrote:
As a pilot who has never flown a contest, I think the entry fees are high
enough. *Typically by the time you pay for entry fees and tows its
something like 600 bucks right? *That's what I recall paying when I
registered for the Region 7 contest that Paul Remde organized a few years
back. *I had to withdraw when I wasn't able to finish my Silver Badge in
time. *I really struggled coming up with that money at the time just to
register. *That 600ish dollars would pretty much pay for a seasons worth
of tows at home. *

As a matter of principle I don't think it's right to expect others to
carry the costs of our choices - even if our choices are forced on us
by personal life circumstances beyond our control. Signing up for a
contest is a commitment. With that commitment comes responsibility.

I think it would be reasonably straightforward to estimate the
marginal cost of a dropout to a typical contest - or at least within a
range. I think it is reasonable to charge last-minute dropouts this
amount, which could be reduced subject to drop-ins or last-minute cost-
reduction measures at the organizer's discretion. You could even put
the charge on a sliding scale from the preferential entry deadline.

Ferry costs, personnel lodging, meal deposits/guarantees and pilot
materials tend to be fixed costs. The bulk of the cost of a contest is
the tows themselves. Much of the cost of the tow is fuel plus an
allowance for maintenance, so you can argue that much of the tow cost
is variable. Since tow pilots already take some risk due to poor
weather, you could say that most of the tow fee is a variable cost,
though I'd be likely to want to cover some "opportunity cost" for tow
pilots who show up and get less than the expected number of tows due
to no-shows. Sanction fees are variable, I believe, as may be some
other costs. To the extent that things like meals cost are subject to
minimum commitments you could envision allowing the first "n" dropouts
off the hook, but charging "n+1" their full cost of going below the
minimum. This creates an incentive for pilots to drop out as soon as
they know rather than sitting on the information as costs mount for
the organizers.

To the extent that organizers want to subsidize the cost of dropouts
to make signing up a bit less of a commitment and potentially increase
participation, that should be their choice, but I'd favor trying to
reduce the financial cost to organizers of poor drop-out etiquette.

9B

Alas, the more you charge people who drop out, in terms of non-
refundable deposits and so forth, the more pilots will simply show up
at the last moment without registering. One could, I suppose, send
them home, but then we end up with even fewer pilots and even fewer
contests.

Let's think instead about how to make contests more fun and more
attractive so more people want to show up in the first place, and less
costly to put on so more clubs and operators want to run them.

John Cochrane BB

On Aug 21, 6:14*am, Andy wrote:
On Aug 13, 7:00*am, Tony Condon
wrote:

As a pilot who has never flown a contest, I think the entry fees are high
enough. *Typically by the time you pay for entry fees and tows its
something like 600 bucks right? *That's what I recall paying when I
registered for the Region 7 contest that Paul Remde organized a few years
back. *I had to withdraw when I wasn't able to finish my Silver Badge in
time. *I really struggled coming up with that money at the time just to
register. *That 600ish dollars would pretty much pay for a seasons worth
of tows at home. *

As a matter of principle I don't think it's right to expect others to
carry the costs of our choices - even if our choices are forced on us
by personal life circumstances beyond our control. Signing up for a
contest is a commitment. With that commitment comes responsibility.

I think it would be reasonably straightforward to estimate the
marginal cost of a dropout to a typical contest - or at least within a
range. I think it is reasonable to charge last-minute dropouts this
amount, which could be reduced subject to drop-ins or last-minute cost-
reduction measures at the organizer's discretion. You could even put
the charge on a sliding scale from the preferential entry deadline.

Ferry costs, personnel lodging, meal deposits/guarantees and pilot
materials tend to be fixed costs. The bulk of the cost of a contest is
the tows themselves. Much of the cost of the tow is fuel plus an
allowance for maintenance, so you can argue that much of the tow cost
is variable. Since tow pilots already take some risk due to poor
weather, you could say that most of the tow fee is a variable cost,
though I'd be likely to want to cover some "opportunity cost" for tow
pilots who show up and get less than the expected number of tows due
to no-shows. Sanction fees are variable, I believe, as may be some
other costs. To the extent that things like meals cost are subject to
minimum commitments you could envision allowing the first "n" dropouts
off the hook, but charging "n+1" their full cost of going below the
minimum. This creates an incentive for pilots to drop out as soon as
they know rather than sitting on the information as costs mount for
the organizers.

To the extent that organizers want to subsidize the cost of dropouts
to make signing up a bit less of a commitment and potentially increase
participation, that should be their choice, but I'd favor trying to
reduce the financial cost to organizers of poor drop-out etiquette.

9B

The SSA sanction fee is $45/pilot for a regional and the event
insurance is ~$850 if unsanctioned and discounted to ~$550 if
sanctioned. Note that in many cases, local premises liability is
_not_ in effect during an 'air meet'. That detail killed our local
friendly contest.

Frank Whiteley

9B's and BB' comments point us in an interesting direction: i.e.,
thinking about glider contests in terms of marketing mix and pricing
policy. After all, organizers are selling a product in competition
with other uses for pilots' time and money. And pilots are no more
"entitled" to glider contests than they are to free gasoline at the
pump.

I can't help it. My father voted Republican his entire life. I'm a
free-market maven. If pilot behavior and organizers' responses drive
us towards 2 or 3 super regionals that only the top-ranked pilots can
gain entry to, so be it. If that should happen, however, I strongly
suspect we would see the advent of more local and regional contests,
perhaps with innovative pricing schemes, that would soon grow big
enough to qualify for (demand?) regional sanctioning.

In the business world, companies routinely study their successful
competitors to learn how to do it better. So what do regionals like
New Castle and Perry and Mifflin and Parowan--all of whom routinely
turn pilots away--do that make them so popular? Why does Region 6 N
(Ionia) draw decent crowds year after year in mid August in Michigan,
a time when this former midwesterner would normally not even bother
driving to the gliderport? Former operator Jerry Benz used to say he
always made money on this contest, so I guess he had it figured out.

A few years ago, Region 1 advertised a sliding-scale entry fee based
on the number of entrants: the more pilots who signed up, the lower
would be the entry fee. I don't know whether this had any effect but
it was an interesting idea. How about a discount for anyone who enters
ahead of time and pays the full, non-refundable fee, like an advance-
purchase airline ticket? Would anyone do that? I guess it depends on
the discount. Would SSA pass along a lower sanction fee in exchange
for being able to keep it regardless of whether the pilot showed up?
Or how about staggered deadlines with increasingly higher fees the
later you enter (yes, I realize this is another twist on the late-
entry surcharge I was complaining about, but I'm making trouble; I
don't have to be consistent).

Switching sports, most marathons in the U.S. offer a lower rate for
those who enter 3 to 6 months in advance, a higher rate for 60 days
out, and still higher for 30 days out or race-weekend registration,
etc. No refunds, ever. A few allow participants to transfer their
entry to another runner, for a fee. Or to defer entry to a subsequent
year, usually with another fee. I'm not saying any of this will work
for soaring contests but with marathons, each race director is free to
design what he/she feels is the optimal combination of race course,
organization, amenities, predicted weather, reputation, etc. And
there's no limit on what a marathon can charge. Some are in the $40
range. Others are over $100...and still close out early. The big ones
often reserve places for runners who raise money for specific
charities: how about "Guaranteed Entry to Perry 2010: Just Raise
$1,000 for the SSA--Sign up your club members and buddies to
contribute $0.10 per mile for every mile you fly, with a $20 bonus if
you win a day or place in the top 3 overall!". None of this may work
with soaring contests but perhaps it's worth looking at some new
concepts, as 9B has proposed. As I said earlier, pilots respond to
financial incentives/disincentives just like everyone else. The trick
is to design such incentives so they accomplish the desired objective,
not just to react in a knee-jerk fashion.

In addition to being free market, I'm also a cynic. Glider pilots are,
on average, a cut above your average consumer. But we have all kinds,
too. So moralizing about how unfair it is not to show up at the last
minute even though a pilot has complied with the rules and, in
addition, forfeits his deposit won't solve this "problem".

Beyond that, there are some thornier questions. If there are only 6 or
7 pilots who will show up for a given regional, should we be trying to
save that regional with new rules and/or fees...or to encourage the
sponsor to take steps to become more competitive? I've flown Region 3
numerous times, including when it's been held at Dansville, NY. It's a
great organization and a fine site where I and my family have had
wonderful times. But I recall two things: (1) August weather in
upstate NY is iffy; and (2) in recent years, the "late entry
surcharge" warning has often been very prominent and "in your face".
I'm sure it's not intended to be offensive but it's put me off.
Moreover, I wonder how many pilots (including yours truly) will put in
our vacation request and plan the kids' summer activities around a
week at Region 3 remembering 2009 when the party was cancelled on
short notice. That's the organizers' decision--and it may have been
the right one--but it has future implications. And those organizers
shouldn't complain next time around if advance registrations are even
lower. Region 3/Dansville was always risky because of the weather. It
just got riskier.

Contrast this with the relatively new and increasingly popular Region
4 North at Mid-Atlantic Soaring Assoc. (Fairfield, PA) in mid October,
a curious time for a contest with short days and in the middle of the
school year. At least in the past, the organizers have encouraged
pilots to show up without worrying about the late-entry surcharge. The
more the merrier. Yes, M-ASA is more flexible than many contest sites:
the club has its own fleet of towplanes, a large volunteer base, and a
facility that can handle a big crowd. Still, they've found a formula
that works, having tried Memorial Day and the 4th of July in prior
years with uneven success. It's even beginning to siphon pilots away
from New Castle, the traditional end-of-the-season get together a few
weeks earlier.

It's a Darwinian process. Our sport is small. If we try to prop up
weak contests with new fees, there will be fewer pilots at the other,
perhaps more deserving contests. Is that what we want?

I don't have the answers. It's much easier to ask questions. As
easy as it is to call for new fees and regulations to enforce
"responsible behavior."

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

On Aug 21, 6:31*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
Alas, the more you charge people who drop out, in terms of non-
refundable deposits and so forth, the more pilots will simply show up
at the last moment without registering. *One could, I suppose, send
them home, but then we end up with even fewer pilots and even fewer
contests.

Let's think instead about how to make contests more fun and more
attractive so more people want to show up in the first place, and less
costly to put on so more clubs and operators want to run them.

John Cochrane BB

Good point - I was focused on some of the bigger western contests with
significant numbers of super-dedicated racing pilots typically in
attendance. I suspect the behavior would vary - the few contests that
regularly fill up would likely loose only a few pre-registrants,
smaller contests would likely loose a lot more. The problem of course
is no-shows affect the smaller contests much more adversely since they
are at the low end of the scale curve.

I still think there is a balance whereby you can create an incentive
for both pre-registering AND for not dropping out last-minute while at
the same time not sticking organizers with an un-economic proposition
should significant numbers of pilots no-show. I am a bit less
concerned with the drop-in crowd since you can usually accommodate a
few before towplane capacity becomes an issue and you can turn away
people if there are too many. I would think the risk of being turned
away would be an incentive to register since many of us spend almost
as much on gas to get to the contest as we due on contest fees (aside
from tows). I wonder whether there is a "maybe" status that costs more
but is fully refundable and puts you on a lower entry status than the
"non-refundable" entry. Airline tickets often are priced this way.

As a strawman imagine you could register for a contest for $200 (non-
refundable) prior to the preferential entry deadline and for $275
(refundable) after the PED. After the PED you'd also stand in line
after all the early registrants in terms of priority, including the
possibility that you won't be admitted like today. At 10 days prior to
the contest all entry fees become non-refundable. Organizers could
relax some of the restrictions for cancellations beyond the pilot's
control such as broken glider and legitimate work/family emergencies.
Registration fees would go towards fixed expenses of the contest so
the overall cost for participants wouldn't change. It might or might
not help early registration, but at least organizers would have a
better sense of who's really committed to coming versus not.

Just a preliminary idea - I'm sure it's full of holes.

9B