One additional note regarding the not-for-profit discussion, where you, Peter, are arguing that both a profit and a not-for-profit organization have to aim for a surplus in order to sustain. That is correct, however, a for-profit organization will aim to maximize its revenues and it will do so by asking the maximum price that the market allows them to. A not-for-profit organization will be happy with a break-even and will design their prices to be the minimum they can “get away with” sustainably.
Yes that’s true – IF the money skimmed away leaves the organisation and produces no benefit to anybody. However if say a club spends 400k on a new Robin, which less than 100% of the members wanted, that comes to the same thing: money going on stuff they don’t want.
I think the money go-around can get quite diffuse, especially if the club does PPL training. Then (because most new PPL holders drop out of flying) there is a nice cross subsidy from the training activity towards the “established” members. The PPL student may well hold the view that a big chunk of the €10k he/she drops at the club is not used for his/her benefit. I know some clubs are cheaper.
I am “just saying” it is not as clear cut as is made out to be.
I think that drinking and debating EASA regs is one of the most valuable aspects of flying clubs, besides making airplanes available to the
alcoholicsmembers.
Time to pull out one of my LFAT street scene pics, showing the Brits pilots wearing yellow jackets while eating their scallops or whatever 
Peter wrote:
However if say a club spends 400k on a new Robin, which less than 100% of the members wanted, that comes to the same thing: money going on stuff they don’t want.
Like in any representative democracy (and I suppose most, if not all clubs are run that way) the outcome will be a compromise for everyone, of course. Still a different scheme from a business, where an owner wants to maximize profits and the only thing keeping him from hiking the prices up is customers running away (i.e. market).
If a club has a clear vision/direction, then it is unlikely that the elected board will spend the money on things nobody wants or needs.
I’ve been a member of a UK “Group” for almost 28 years, varying over that time from 6 to 8 members, owning and operating a Jodel DR1050. Decisions have been majority, and I’ve had to argue to get us to aim for a profit – the alternative is to have to put up money to meet an expense. When this has happened, there’s a big argument, and for several years there’s no question about making a profit.This seems to be like a very small European-style “Club”.
For almost 31 years, I’ve had to be a member of a UK-style “Club” in order to get instruction, and to occasionally rent.
In the US, I’ve rented and got instruction at an FBO without paying a Membership Fee.
I prefer the US system for instruction and rental.
