That’s not cricket; is it vicar?
Not certain if P2 can isolate the RAA deputation’s ‘speech’ at the Wagga indaba; but it would be useful. Watching the live feed at the time, I thought that particular speech and the general attitude of the speaker was ‘off’; but dismissed the notion as RAA simply hedging their bets, being totally dependent on maintaining the goodwill (and funding) they enjoy of CASA. Looking at my notes, they have little to loose by supporting a change to the Act although there is not a lot more they can gain, so a neutral stance toward the regulator and weighing into the Act debate would do no harm. But something rang a faint warning bell, which, to my chagrin, I ignored while trying to keep up with the work being done on the broader canvass.
Recent developments brought that time back to mind and crystalized the impression that speech left behind. I did some digging about the place; it seems, despite the howls of protest from it’s very own membership the RAA board are determined to keep the AOPA ‘trademark’ for their own. I’m told there is to be an extraordinary meeting called to vote on 2 items.
1) The trademark; and, (2) whether those responsible for hi-jacking it should be fired.
Sunfish – “I received an email, as many of you will have today, that allegedly asserts that RAA has trademarked the identifiably AOPA trademark slogan: "Freedom To Fly" in Australia. The letter further alleges that despite entreaties from some RAA members, the Board and CEO of RAA have allegedly refused to either withdraw the registration, or perhaps more usefully assign it to AOPA in perpetuity. My own opinion, if all this is true, is unprintable, not because of what it says about RAA but because what it says about the industry.
Hear, hear - Sunny pretty much sums it up for mine. No winners for industry in the thing; but plenty to loose. I can’t believe the rank and file of RAA actually want to assist in driving a wedge between the two schools of operating. I’m all for a friendly, competitive environment, both outfits need membership, although they are, in essentials, different beasts. United in ‘reform’ for the betterment of aviation, there is half a chance of benefit to both. Divided only plays one sad song.
IMO, this distasteful, pointless episode needs to be ended, soonest. Release the ‘trademark’ let the RAA management come up with their very own ‘jingle’ and let harmony rule, before the inevitable happens. The least of which will be a huge legal cost to the RAA membership: never doubt the AOPA ability to fight back. They have in the past and will again, if pushed.
Toot – sad – toot.
Not certain if P2 can isolate the RAA deputation’s ‘speech’ at the Wagga indaba; but it would be useful. Watching the live feed at the time, I thought that particular speech and the general attitude of the speaker was ‘off’; but dismissed the notion as RAA simply hedging their bets, being totally dependent on maintaining the goodwill (and funding) they enjoy of CASA. Looking at my notes, they have little to loose by supporting a change to the Act although there is not a lot more they can gain, so a neutral stance toward the regulator and weighing into the Act debate would do no harm. But something rang a faint warning bell, which, to my chagrin, I ignored while trying to keep up with the work being done on the broader canvass.
Recent developments brought that time back to mind and crystalized the impression that speech left behind. I did some digging about the place; it seems, despite the howls of protest from it’s very own membership the RAA board are determined to keep the AOPA ‘trademark’ for their own. I’m told there is to be an extraordinary meeting called to vote on 2 items.
1) The trademark; and, (2) whether those responsible for hi-jacking it should be fired.
Sunfish – “I received an email, as many of you will have today, that allegedly asserts that RAA has trademarked the identifiably AOPA trademark slogan: "Freedom To Fly" in Australia. The letter further alleges that despite entreaties from some RAA members, the Board and CEO of RAA have allegedly refused to either withdraw the registration, or perhaps more usefully assign it to AOPA in perpetuity. My own opinion, if all this is true, is unprintable, not because of what it says about RAA but because what it says about the industry.
Hear, hear - Sunny pretty much sums it up for mine. No winners for industry in the thing; but plenty to loose. I can’t believe the rank and file of RAA actually want to assist in driving a wedge between the two schools of operating. I’m all for a friendly, competitive environment, both outfits need membership, although they are, in essentials, different beasts. United in ‘reform’ for the betterment of aviation, there is half a chance of benefit to both. Divided only plays one sad song.
IMO, this distasteful, pointless episode needs to be ended, soonest. Release the ‘trademark’ let the RAA management come up with their very own ‘jingle’ and let harmony rule, before the inevitable happens. The least of which will be a huge legal cost to the RAA membership: never doubt the AOPA ability to fight back. They have in the past and will again, if pushed.
Toot – sad – toot.