USA: Regional Contest Entry w/ Drop Outs

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

I have been reading this thread with GREAT interest. I have been the
organizer for a few years (trained by the BEST!), and I usually have a
50% drop out/drop off ratio for Parowan. I usually get over 100
applications, to fill 50-55 spots. Preferential entry, Super-Regional
Status, Rankings had nothing to do with this ratio; It's been the same
for the last three years, even this last year using the new improved
"Super-Regional" rules. However this summer was the first time I
opened a NEW contest site. I can't believe using the same ratio
expectation made such a difference in the financial aspect.

I agree that we don't want to make any rules from a "knee-jerk"
reaction. The late entry fee was laughable IMHO, because I have yet
to see or organize a contest, where I wasn't grateful for the few that
showed up last minute to fill an opening from a pilot that did a no-
call-no-show.

I would prefer a "black-list" approach. I have several pilots that I
know have a propensity to register, not let me know, then not show
up. Those are the ones that cost me a fortune at the contest, and put
future contests at jeopardy.

I even had one pilot this year send me an e-mail on day 1 of the
contest (after two days of practice), and state that he guessed I
figured that he wasn't showing up, and I should donate his deposit to
the Jr. Team. DONATE????? what about his meals already ordered, his
portion of the ferry fees to get tow planes out there, his portion of
the tables and chairs, his portion of the hangar rental, his portion
of the porta-potties? Many other things that organizers have to pay
up front, without knowing how many rude pilots will or will not show
up? This year I had to cancel meals (with cancellation fees), cancel
audio equipment, cancel porta-potties, borrow equipment instead of
rent or purchase when needed...and more. I was really upset about
cancelling the microphone, because Charlie-Lite, my CD, is recovering
from throat cancer, and really needed that microphone, but I just
couldn't afford it, because so many people didn't show up at the
contest.

I would like to recommend that if an organizer had a no-call-no-show
experience with a pilot, that they could/would maintain a
communication with other contest organizers, and that individual pilot
would lose their seeding/ranking. I have 4 pilots that I would
immediately put on that list, and do not wish to see their names again
within the on-line registration for any contest that I organize in the
future. They would have to "earn" their trust with me again, however,
I am not allowed to (SSA rules) discriminate against these pilots that
have literally "stolen" monies from me as a contest organizer. That
doesn't even count the glider pilot that made off with a hand-held at
a FBO, that I had to replace out of contest monies.

I have learned at great expense with money and time (neither of which
I have much) to be a contest organizer, in order to recruit more
people to the sport of soaring, and competition in particular. I WANT
to increase the 4% participation of glider pilots in competition. I
set up my little organization as a non-profit, however, with glider
pilots not showing up, it adds a whole new meaning to NON-profit. I
think that the contest organizers that are still out there need to
unite and demand our own RIGHTS....let's not show any preferential
seeding treatment to those that are blacklisted, by their own lack of
courtesy and financial responsibility to us poor organizers trying to
figure out what pilots are going to show up or not using our magic
crystal balls. Too bad my crystal ball is in the repair shop.

Micki Minner

Too bad my crystal ball is in the repair shop.

I just had a private e-mail about my previous posting...in this e-mail
it stated that perhaps contest organization was moving away from
fostering the sport. Well, of course, who said that contests should
be run out of the goodness of one's heart, and be willing to take
financial losses that weren't of their own making? Who said that
contest organizers had to be non-profit? who said that if I were
willing to organize a contest, that I shouldn't be making a profit?
(although the point of my previous post wasn't whether or not I made
any profit, that is BESIDE the point). I also heard from another
contest organizer that they "cooked" the books to make it look like
they earned less money because they didn't want glider pilots to know
that they ran a good AND profitable contest. I have had another
glider pilot tell me to stop ordering meals, if that was the
problem.

Why should an organizer run at a loss to be "good" for the sport? Why
do the people who make the rules protect the pilots who race, but not
the organizers who hold the races. I don't think it is good for the
sport to have contests with only 6 participants, I don't think it is
good for the sport to cancel a contest, but I would rather cancel the
contest then have it boil down to that few. Most contests are run by
a club, and I agree that this is exactly where contests should be
run! However, what incentive does a club have besides a little fun
and a LOT of hard work, if they aren’t sure they can break even or
make a profit. Most clubs can’t afford to host a contest, if they
can’t make a profit. And why should they?

The problem is simply that people do not indicate whether or not they
are really going to show up. The secondary issue, is what is there to
gain from organizing contests. I am sure that the pilots who
regularly participate in contests would like to keep organizers
running them for their benefit......in order to race...but let's get
real folks....the rules are for the glider pilots, and don't do
anything to protect the organizers. The attempt to "raise" the
deposit was obviously a rule that did nothing to stop the trend. I
don't mind pilots registering, and then changing their minds, I do
mind pilots that don't tell the contest organizer that they decided to
not show up. Their paltry deposits, don't make up for the "no-call-no-
show" aggravation.

Whether or not I made a profit at any one contest shouldn't even be
asked in this discussion. It is totally none of the business of the
people in rec.aviation; friends, or the rules committee. The only
people who SHOULD ask, are the people that ran the contest, and the
contestants that did show up. The process should be so protected for
the organizers, that they always make a profit; otherwise there is no
reason for anyone to organize a contest at all. THEN how good would
it be for the sport? how many people would we have rising out of the
regionals to fly in the nationals and represent us in the worlds?

I want to continue organizing contests, and teaching clubs how to run
contests and opening up new contest sites. I want there to be future
contests, but this disturbing trend evidenced by Dansville (a great
group, and organizer) is not suprising, and they should not be shamed
because they did the only business-like thing they could. If we don't
run this like a business, then there won't be any future contests for
glider pilots to race. that would be the worst part, no contests, and
the 4% dropping even further, because there would be no opportunity to
make racers out of any more glider pilots.

Micki

On Aug 22, 3:08*pm, Micki wrote:
Too bad my crystal ball is in the repair shop.

I just had a private e-mail about my previous posting...in this e-mail
it stated that perhaps contest organization was moving away from
fostering the sport. *Well, of course, who said that contests should
be run out of the goodness of one's heart, and be willing to take
financial losses that weren't of their own making? *Who said that
contest organizers had to be non-profit? *who said that if I were
willing to organize a contest, that I shouldn't be making a profit?
(although the point of my previous post wasn't whether or not I made
any profit, that is BESIDE the point). *I also heard from another
contest organizer that they "cooked" the books to make it look like
they earned less money because they didn't want glider pilots to know
that they ran a good AND profitable contest. *I have had another
glider pilot tell me to stop ordering meals, if that was the
problem.

Why should an organizer run at a loss to be "good" for the sport? *Why
do the people who make the rules protect the pilots who race, but not
the organizers who hold the races. *I don't think it is good for the
sport to have contests with only 6 participants, I don't think it is
good for the sport to cancel a contest, but I would rather cancel the
contest then have it boil down to that few. *Most contests are run by
a club, and I agree that this is exactly where contests should be
run! *However, what incentive does a club have besides a little fun
and a LOT of hard work, if they aren’t sure they can break even or
make a profit. *Most clubs can’t afford to host a contest, if they
can’t make a profit. *And why should they?

The problem is simply that people do not indicate whether or not they
are really going to show up. *The secondary issue, is what is there to
gain from organizing contests. *I am sure that the pilots who
regularly participate in contests would like to keep organizers
running them for their benefit......in order to race...but let's get
real folks....the rules are for the glider pilots, and don't do
anything to protect the organizers. *The attempt to "raise" the
deposit was obviously a rule that did nothing to stop the trend. *I
don't mind pilots registering, and then changing their minds, I do
mind pilots that don't tell the contest organizer that they decided to
not show up. *Their paltry deposits, don't make up for the "no-call-no-
show" aggravation.

Whether or not I made a profit at any one contest shouldn't even be
asked in this discussion. *It is totally none of the business of the
people in rec.aviation; friends, or the rules committee. *The only
people who SHOULD ask, are the people that ran the contest, and the
contestants that did show up. *The process should be so protected for
the organizers, that they always make a profit; otherwise there is no
reason for anyone to organize a contest at all. *THEN how good would
it be for the sport? *how many people would we have rising out of the
regionals to fly in the nationals and represent us in the worlds?

I want to continue organizing contests, and teaching clubs how to run
contests and opening up new contest sites. *I want there to be future
contests, but this disturbing trend evidenced by Dansville (a great
group, and organizer) is not suprising, and they should not be shamed
because they did the only business-like thing they could. *If we don't
run this like a business, then there won't be any future contests for
glider pilots to race. that would be the worst part, no contests, and
the 4% dropping even further, because there would be no opportunity to
make racers out of any more glider pilots.

Micki

Well said Micki. It bizarre to me that anyone thinks people involved
in the various businesses that support soaring make a lot of money -
or that they should be non-profit.

Ideally you'd want an way to encourage pilots to register reasonably
early, not "drop out" at the last minute and feel like they can still
"drop in" if their schedule suddenly opens up - all without
encouraging pilots who know they can come to delay registering.
Airlines refer to this as "yield management" and pricing/terms are the
main tools they use. I think in soaring we could additionally use more
active communication and "reputation" factors. Banning pilots from
competition for a period of time is too severe, but you could subtract
seeding points for unexcused absences. I personally prefer the
financial penalty as it makes the punishment fit the crime.

One idea is to require pilots to "confirm" their attendance 1-2 weeks
prior to the contest - possibly by making an additional non-refundable
deposit. Without the additional deposit you become a "soft" entrant
and go to the end of the line for entry (if the contest fills up or
there aren't enough towplanes - you're out), tie-downs, meals, etc.
Then at least contest organizers know that you might not be coming and
have some better ability to plan. It also allows over-subscribed
contests to notify pilots on the wait list while there's still some
time to make plans.

9B

Micki: I agree with Andy -- well said. Pilots should face a loss of
more than $100 if they fail to show up without sufficient notice.

When the Arizona Soaring Association hosted the 2006 Region 9 at Turf
we faced a major problem when the Air Force Academy pulled out at the
last minute. Due to the generosity of just two local pilots -- and I
will name them, Chris Woods and Mike Rubenstein (both of whom donated
unused meals and tows) -- we avoided a loss by the skin of our teeth.
And hosting a regional at Turf is much less of a headache than at
Parowan.

Keep your chin up, Micki, it is always the 5% of peelots that cause
90% of your grief. The rest of the pilots cheer the efforts of you and
Charlie and I for one hope you start making enough money from these
things to buy yourself something nice!

-ted/2NO/contestjunkie

On Aug 23, 10:13*am, Tuno wrote:
Micki: I agree with Andy -- well said. Pilots should face a loss of
more than $100 if they fail to show up without sufficient notice.

When the Arizona Soaring Association hosted the 2006 Region 9 at Turf
we faced a major problem when the Air Force Academy pulled out at the
last minute. Due to the generosity of just two local pilots -- and I
will name them, Chris Woods and Mike Rubenstein (both of whom donated
unused meals and tows) -- we avoided a loss by the skin of our teeth.
And hosting a regional at Turf is much less of a headache than at
Parowan.

Keep your chin up, Micki, it is always the 5% of peelots that cause
90% of your grief. The rest of the pilots cheer the efforts of you and
Charlie and I for one hope you start making enough money from these
things to buy yourself something nice!

-ted/2NO/contestjunkie

Okay I ran some numbers on this - based on the detailed financial
report for the 2009 R9 contest (thanks Micki).

Without agonizing over details - the total cost for a 60-glider
contest is about $45,000. About $10,000 is truly fixed costs. Another
$6,000 goes to meals which are mostly-fixed (subject to minimum
commitments some time in advance) and about $25,000 goes to tows which
are semi-variable (fuel is a variable cost and tow pilots tend to take
much of the risk of less than anticipated numbers of tows due to
weather or drop-outs). Sanction fees and other purely variable costs
make up the balance.

If you add it all up, you should be able to cover the fixed costs
(including meals) for a non-refundable deposit of $275 and a $375
deposit would allow you to cover for 25% of the no-show tow fees as
well.

I'm sure a smaller contest would have more fixed expenses per pilot.

So my idea would be to make the deposit $350, $250 of which is
refundable prior to the Preferential Entry Deadline and none of which
is refundable after 2 weeks prior to the first practice day. It would
be up to the organizers to decide on special exceptions such as for
broken gliders.

9B

On Aug 23, 11:15*am, Andy wrote:
On Aug 23, 10:13*am, Tuno wrote:

So my idea would be to make the deposit $350, $250 of which is
refundable prior to the Preferential Entry Deadline and none of which
is refundable after 2 weeks prior to the first practice day. It would
be up to the organizers to decide on special exceptions such as for
broken gliders.

9B

Correction - I meant the $350 deposit would be fully refundable prior
to the PED, $250 would be refundable AFTER the PED and none would be
refundable within 2 weeks of the first contest day.

9B
9B

On Aug 21, 7:52*pm, Chip Bearden wrote:
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

I understand the concept of a free market. Simply said, it is a
condition in which a "supplier" offers goods or services for a price
and "customers" choose to partake or not.
Our situation is a bit different, in my view. We have
"providers"(organizers) and "beneficiaries" (contestants). We have to
ensure that needed conditions are met for both. Fees aren't the
answer, but we need to look at how to make sure organizers can
continue to provide us a field to play on.
True, Jerry Benz was heard to say he never lost money. I was also
there in '89 when we ended with the first no contest in many years and
contestants didn't get a dime back after only flying 3 days. Many
vowed never to return, and many haven't. Privately I have heard a
couple gripes about organizers taking advantage of contestants, but
mostly I see it as the opposite.
One possibility which comes to mind is to permit organizers to freeze
the size of the field at the end of preferential entry so they know
how many to accomodate. They could then accept, at their discression,
whatever number they choose to handle the usual dropouts, many of whom
do so for good and unexpected reasons.
Thhis has been a good discussion.
UH