USPA Membership Dues& Rating Fees going up?

[fincher 0]

touche! my dingo breeding marsupial nurturing friend.

USPA all the way! You guys have no appreciation for the legal work they do to support your sport. INGRATES!

i'll huff and I'll puff and I'll burn your packing tent down

[skybytch 273]

Quote

How much have dues gone up in the past twenty years?

I'll answer my own question. In 1991, renewal was $33.50. Today it's $49. So it's gone up $15.50 in 18 years - less than a dollar a year.

In return for which we get a magazine, insurance in case we land on Farmer Joe's horse (possibly worth thousands of dollars), and representation in Washington (do you really think we'd have a 180 day repack cycle without USPA?). For less than $5 a month? C'mon people, some of you pay more than that for a latte every day!

You also get an organization that you can bitch and whine about when it doesn't do things your way or wants to take yet another dollar a year out of your pocket. That alone should be worth the price of admission.

[Snowball 0]

Quote

Quote

How much have dues gone up in the past twenty years?

I'll answer my own question. In 1991, renewal was $33.50. Today it's $49. So it's gone up $15.50 in 18 years - less than a dollar a year.

In return for which we get a magazine, insurance in case we land on Farmer Joe's horse (possibly worth thousands of dollars), and representation in Washington (do you really think we'd have a 180 day repack cycle without USPA?). For less than $5 a month? C'mon people, some of you pay more than that for a latte every day!

You also get an organization that you can bitch and whine about when it doesn't do things your way or wants to take yet another dollar a year out of your pocket. That alone should be worth the price of admission.

PIA did the legwork for the repack. USPA did nothing on that.

[michalm21 2]

Do not want to stir the pot, but there are documents available on guidestar.org
It is a free service but requires to create a free account.
USPA is required to fill out Form 990 every year.
I believe I posted it about 2 years ago, statements from 2004 and 2003 were then available. Now they added 2006 and 2005.

Here's a link to their 2006 statement (compensation is on page 27 )
USPA 2006 Form 990 (938KB) PDF Clicky

[jdatc 0]

Quote

Here's a link to their 2006 statement

USPA 2006 Form 990 (938KB) PDF Clicky

Wow, don't know whether to laugh or not.

The money spent on the magazine / publications (page 18) is staggering in relation to the money that was spent on government affairs (page 21)...

$822,378 vs $116,201

Then on page 23, I see airport Access Defense fund... No spending that year eh?

At least some of it makes sense, like the members insurance premium $355,524... Which is truly the only reason I am a member. I'd stop delivery of the magazine, pay the same and hope they'd put the difference into the 'spending on governemnt affairs'

I couldn't find, maybe someone else with better eyes could, what the revenue from advertsising in the magazine was?

No, I've decided it's really sad. If there was an outside 3rd party insurance company that was recognized by USPA dropzones or what not, I'd dump the USPA and not look back.

I'd hope the 2007 and 2008 reports show a shift in spending towards government programs and airport access defense funds, otherwise some people seem to just be blowing smoke....

_justin

[kimemerson 7]

Yeah, lose the ragazine. It certainly has come a long way from the four page B&W newsletter of the '50's. And it has gotten better to look at and sort of raised its own collectible value just in its appearance. However, in times when good sized city newspapers are falling to the Internet and opting to publish only one or two days a week with the balance being on line; in times when print media is falling victim to the times, the net and general reader apathy; with an organization in which membership has for eons complained about getting the magazine and has discussed ad infinitum the desire to opt out; in times when everything costs more everyday and is disproportionate to income increases and ability; in an organization which is already admitting to membership loss due to many factors, among them being financial and the escalating costs of everything directly and indirectly connected, wouldn't it make sense to drop the glossy magazine? It has been slammed as being a forum and vehicle largely for beginners (cue the big sigh over the departure of Skydiving...) it caters mostly to a self inflicted image of piety and goodness and so refuses to be a true voice of the people it claims to represent.
It occurs to me that in fiscal difficulty it might pay to see where trimming of unnecessary baggage might be viewed as frugal and responsible. Plus, as we already know, the Internet is a tsunami and will eventually force the issue anyway.
I am usually done reading Parachutist within the first half hour of receiving it. Done. Unless I happen to have to take a shit then it gets a little more face time, if you'll excuse the image. Even if one remains adamant that Parachutist is a great rag, it might be wise to suck it up and let the thing go to its final resting place.
Skydiving is supposed to be fun. It can be elitist due to the costs. I would encourage USPA to see what it can do to help. Parachutist as a memory might be a respectable start. That is, with respect to members.

[pirana 0]

Quote

The money spent on the magazine / publications (page 18) is staggering in relation to the money that was spent on government affairs (page 21)...

$822,378 vs $116,201

If that is net expense (after advertising revenue), then definitely can the magazine. I like the idea of putting it online.

Online it could still include advertising. Wonder how the numbers would work out?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Airgump 1]

i agree with kim, let the dodo bird, i mean the ragachutist go the way of the saber toothed kitty cat.

uspa is sending out mass emails with their little tidbits of stuff from jim crouch, so why not make ragachutist another link of this revamped high speed high tech new web site that we're already paying for.

i know Polly's bird cage and the out house will never be the same, but hell, enough already!

[tombuch 0]

Quote

I'll answer my own question. In 1991, renewal was $33.50. Today it's $49. So it's gone up $15.50 in 18 years - less than a dollar a year.

Check out the inflation calculator at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis at http://www.minneapolisfed.org/

According to the calculation, $33.50 in 1991 would be worth $53.03 in 2008 (the most recent year the software can calculate). There are many ways to calculate the value of a dollar over time, but this one is easy to use and reasonable, and well worth including in your bookmarks for quick research.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[SStewart 13]

Very well said!

Another option would be to go to a quarterly magazine. This is what the APF (Australia) does and ASM is a far superior publication in my opinion. 4 printings a year instead of 12. This might be a good compromise for those that think Parachutist is some sort of sacred cow that can't be eliminated altogether.

Let the free market fill the void, maybe somebody will step in and pick up where Skydiving Magazine left off.

Onward and Upward!

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Another option would be to go to a quarterly magazine. This is what the APF (Australia) does and ASM is a far superior publication in my opinion. 4 printings a year instead of 12.

That's a great idea, but you know that the USPA will screw it up. They'll insist that since it's quarterly, the magazine needs to be bigger, and longer, on better paper, and mailed in an envelope. They'll find a way to make each issue cost twice as much. Still a net gain over 12 cheaper issues, but you get the idea.

I like how they are all over e-mails and the internet for their pet program 'The Solo Challenge', but they can't see this as a viable form of communication for the magazine. Just post the articles and pictures online. It's just text and pics, it's easy.

Of course they'll screw that up too. They'll need a new website, and new administrator, a graphic artist, some new software bullshit, and the whole thing will cost 6 times what it needs to.

[chriswelker 0]

***What can be on the chopping block? We've already eliminated one full time position at HQ, so there's a savings of $50-75k. There's probably no more significant cuts to be had in payroll without seriously impacting services.***



Q USPA is wasting money right and left and you know it! 2 words for ya, PAY CUT. Hey if they don't like let them go somewhere else better.Have ya'll looked at cutting their Health Insurance and bennies?

You might also want to look at postage and printing costs because between that and payroll is where all the money is going according to reports.

Stop taking the path of least resistance and work at balancing the budget with no dues or rating fees increase.

Q, BTW how much is this next BOD costing the club members this time.

USPA should ask for a BAILOUT.

Chris

[Thanatos340 1]

There is no question that the USPA and Skydiving in general is about to face some tough economic times. As our economy weakens, People will be cutting frivolous expenditures first. Nothing is more frivolous than throwing $20 Bills from airplanes for no other reason other than it is fun.

I hope the USPA takes a close look at what a price increase will do to already dropping membership numbers. If we have a $5 a year increase and subsequently loose 5000 Members.

30,000 members @ $49 – 1,470,000
25,000 members @ $54 – 1,350,000

In this scenario, the increase creates a net loss of $120,000. Price increases do not always increase revenue and quite often have the opposite effect.

No matter what the USPA does, I think membership will be down this year as people are just too scared to spend money right now.

Cutting costs is the only way to go.

Cut the PR consultant.

The software upgrade will have to wait till the economy improves. There is a system in place right now that does work. It may be cumbersome and inefficient but it does work.

Cut Parachutist to Bi-Monthly or Quarterly.

Look for other places where costs can be cut because right now is NOT the time to raise prices. A price increase at this time would create a net loss for the USPA in my opinion.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

According to the calculation, $33.50 in 1991 would be worth $53.03 in 2008 (the most recent year the software can calculate).

So USPA dues haven't even kept up with inflation.

Less than $5 a month to keep the government from regulating us like government's in other countries do? It's a bargain.

[Snowball 0]

U say we have a $300,000 shortfall. That means that dues increase would be about $300,000/35000 = $8-$9. Let's see that's $9/$49 x 100 = 18% increase. Wow! that's some cost of doing business increase. What's this bullshit about oh we can't raise GM dues becauese they already paid? That makes no sense. Budgets have funky ways of creating 'deficits', when none actually exist. Investments may depreciate, but until you actually sell them, there is no realized deficit. Doesn't USPA invest in interest bearing and dividends investments? The investment income comes mostly from interest and dividends, not actual buying and selling of securities. Another funky budget manuever is to plan on getting income from the sales of the ACME Widget, say $75,000. You put that in the budget for several years. But amazingly the ACME Widget does not generate anywhere near that amount of income. Then you realize that the budget is wrong to project such strong sales. Next you reduce the projected income to $1000 - much closer to actual sales. Presto - you have a $74,000 shortfall in the budget. Oh my gosh the sky is falling we have to raise dues. Let's see the budget. I am sure there are accountants that can see the funny money. Oh yeah - $70,000 for ecommerce - get real.

[Snowball 0]

Could in be that dues were overpriced in 1991? Oh no - THAT would never happen.

[airtwardo 7]

Cut the PR consultant.

What good would THAT do...it's 'only' costing 100K & hey look at the FLOOD of media exposure we've been getting... !

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[skybytch 273]

As the recent election results clearly show, the majority of USPA members are either happy with what the organization is doing or they don't give a shit as long as there are airplanes available for them to jump from. They also don't care what a bunch of self-important whiners with loud keyboards (that'd be those of us who post here) think either.

How many of the people bitching on this thread have contacted their RD or any ND about an increase in dues and rating fees?

[micduran 0]

Yup.
If you didn't vote - don't bitch!

Be patient with the faults of others; they have to be patient with yours.

[DSE 5]

nah...non-voters will always bitch and moan, being a hypocrite is easy.

I'd agree with Tdog, 70K for an online commerce system? Given the base code of the new USPA website, that's not only enormous, it's grossly overbudgeted, even to buy a packaged solution vs custom code.

[TaylorC 0]

what is the cost for uspa right now? nver payed USPA dues before but i am gonna have to here soon.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

I hope the USPA takes a close look at what a price increase will do to already dropping membership numbers. If we have a $5 a year increase and subsequently loose 5000 Members.

I don't think the $5/$10 annual increase in USPA dues is what's going to cause a loss of membership - its the overall cost of skydiving that's going to cause people to quit, either temporarily or permanently. To suggest that USPA not raise dues because it will cause people to quit the sport is a little dramatic.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[Thanatos340 1]

My point (and not real clear as I reread that) is that membership WILL drop this year due to tough economic times. Revenue will drop no matter the USPA does in my opinion.

I would not be surprised to see Membership numbers in mid to High 20K`s range this year.

My point was that the USPA should look at cutting costs before raising fees. I made some specific suggestions that could save 200K to 300K this year.

The $5 to $10 increase will not make a difference at all to me. The USPA will still get the same $100 Check I usually send (Renewal, Priority Mag Delivery and Remainder to Airport defense fund.. So any increase in dues will just come directly out of the airport defense fund portion), But there are many other there that will not renew if they increase prices.

And many more that will not renew no matter the USPA does.

[stitch 0]

A bit off topic, but do you believe your contibutions to the airport defense fund to be whortwhile ? In my short time in the sport I've seen far too many DZs have to either move or shut down due to airport access issues. And all of that time I've wondered where is the USPA and the airport defense fund ?

"No cookies for you"- GFD
"I don't think I like the sound of that" ~ MB65
Don't be a "Racer Hater"

[BillyVance 35]

Quote

A bit off topic, but do you believe your contibutions to the airport defense fund to be whortwhile ? In my short time in the sport I've seen far too many DZs have to either move or shut down due to airport access issues. And all of that time I've wondered where is the USPA and the airport defense fund ?

Speaking of airport access defense funds, does anybody remember the bullshit Mike Igo and Gold Coast Skydivers went through with the Trent Lott airport board when they got evicted? I don't remember if USPA did anything to help. Mike had all the evidence to throw the bullshit back in the airport board's faces in court, but their lawyers filed and motioned him to death.

Fucking bastards...

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban