Clubs = bad for GA
Owners = “real, proper and good GA”
which the OP implicated
I don’t read the above in my original post.
If I was to paraphrase my post, I would say that clubs provide an opportunity for people to reach a certain level and then they keep them at that level – in terms of both where they fly and in terms of limiting their ambitions (which in turn limits where they fly).
Economically speaking, as others have already said too, it is in the club’s interest to run like that, because managing the fleet is very hard otherwise IF you want to keep flying as low cost as possible.
We know some people can walk into some establishment in say Germany and fly off with an SR22, no questions asked. But these are exceptions.
MedEwok wrote:
The main problem in this topic seems to be that this definition of what constitutes a club is not consequently used.
The main problem with this topic, and some other threads on EuroGA, is what some perceive as being “real flying” and making a value scale of GA ranking from just doing circuits at the bottom of the scale, to 7 hour legs at the top of the scale.
That’s just another thinly disguised swipe at the mod (me), but yeah, go for it.
Aviathor wrote:
The main problem with this topic, and some other threads on EuroGA, is what some perceive as being “real flying” and making a value scale of GA ranking from just doing circuits at the bottom of the scale, to 7 hour legs at the top of the scale.
Well said!
Peter wrote:
I don’t read the above in my original post.
Admittedly, you didn’t write that. I was deliberately exaggerating.
Peter wrote:
Economically speaking, as others have already said too, it is in the club’s interest to run like that, because managing the fleet is very hard otherwise IF you want to keep flying as low cost as possible.
Sure, but there is a counter-argument for that as well: what is the use of learning to fly if afterwards you are not put into position by your club to actually “usefully” use it? I know this “usefully” has different meanings for different people, but for some (actually I would say “many”) it means being able to go places and enjoy them.
Therefore an ideal club should encourage touring (and letting the aircraft sit idle!) to some degree, leaving economics apart. In the long run, being “accomodating” to all types of members should be beneficial for a club. One can’t just totally divide “flying” from “travelling”.
boscomantico wrote:
Therefore an ideal club should encourage touring (and letting the aircraft sit idle!) to some degree, leaving economics apart. In the long run, being “accomodating” to all types of members should be beneficial for a club. One can’t just totally divide “flying” from “travelling”.
Well I like your approach to the topic at hand. Instead of discussing whether clubs hold GA back, let’s just say for the sake of a good discussion that this were true. Then what do you guys propose should clubs do to change this?
boscomantico wrote:
Therefore an ideal club should encourage touring (and letting the aircraft sit idle!) to some degree
All clubs I have been a member of (France and Norway – let’s rule out the US) do that to some degree. The only issue I have had is that they theoretically “force you” to fly, on average, at least 2 hours per day on weekdays and 3 hours during weekends, which is understandable to some degree. But that’s a lot of flying. And that kind of flying is not compatible with bringing your wife and/or family along. It will rather be several pilots together.
But in reality, many (higher-end – read expensive) planes never fly 2 or 3 hours per day, so I have found the 2-3 hours/day is often not enforced.
Sure.
But
All clubs I have been a member of (France and Norway – let’s rule out the US) do that to some degree. The only issue I have had is that they theoretically “force you” to fly, on average, at least 2 hours per day on weekdays and 3 hours during weekends,
is a contradiction in itself. 
The minimum hours would have to be lower to be able to say a club encourages touring.
Then what do you guys propose should clubs do to change this?
Well, an ideal club would one or two aircraft where the daily minimum would be lower, say 1.5 hours a day, to encourage using it for touring.
This would mean that at the end of the year, the aircraft might have flown only 100 or 150 hours and didn’t quite earn its keep / cover its own costs. In an ideal club, this would then be slightly cross-subsidized from the other aircraft flying 300-400 hours a year. I know, this is a hot potato, but in fact, some German clubs do this. Again, in order to be attractice to all types of members.
An alternative is the German " Lisa model", which you might be familar with: rent out the aircraft for 50 Euros a day (to cover its basic fixed cost) and not apply a daily minimum at all. It has worked fantastically for PuF. The aircraft fly 400-500 hours a year, despite touring quite a bit. Unfortunately, this concept hasn’t spread much over other clubs yet.
an actual club does not have “economic interests” because it is non-profit.
That is not how money works in the Universe.
Any activity has to make more money than it pays out, otherwise it will generate a deficit and will eventually go bust. Do a google on UK’s one-time favourite trendy non profit fake charity – Kids Company (admittedly they were never short of donations; they just wasted them). A club has to cover its expenses and make a surplus. It cannot aim to break even exactly because the Universe doesn’t work like that. You have to aim for a surplus and then you might do something with it… buy a new coffee machine, buy some garden tables and a BBQ, the President can spend it taking female club members for dinners, and other productive stuff
A “non profit” entity is just a fashionable “warm and fuzzy feeling” name for a business which doesn’t pay corporation tax on the surplus, and there are other taxation differences, and maybe benefits like tax free avgas (which then cannot be sold to visitors, except under the table). Generally it means the surplus can be retained in its entirety. Whoever runs it has to be a competent business person like in any other business, and all the considerations e.g. asset utilisation are the same as in a limited company.
A non profit entity has to generate Accounts (sent to the national tax authority) to show that the money is not being squandered – this is necessary because a large % of charities etc are fakes; a cover for some activity that exists primarily to support the people who run it. In some countries a non profit aeroclub also generates formal Minutes of meetings, which can have quite a funny content, a bit like a dozen rabbits debating which of them is to have a Very Important Hole in the Ground
