March 2010
EVER SINCE the start of general aviation in South Africa, those bodies established to represent the GA sector, such as the Commercial Aviation Association of SA (CAASA), the Aero Club of SA and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) have all struggled to recruit sufficient membership to make their organisations sustainable.
Initially these organisations all started out being run by volunteers. However, as the workloads and complexity of the aviation business increased, it became necessary for both CAASA and the Aero Club to appoint fulltime secretariats to manage the affairs of their respective sectors and affiliated associations and clubs. Despite the fact that most of the issues tackled by these organisations are of interest and benefit to the vast majority of the GA fraternity, large portions of the industry have always seen fit not to sign up as members of these bodies.
“Why pay for something if you can get the benefit for nothing?” seems to be the excuse. And it is the prevalence of this attitude that has nearly brought about the demise of some of the important associations. Just to give an idea of how little funding is provided through membership contributions, one need only look at the income streams for CAASA. Membership fees provide for a mere 30% of the operating expenses of the association. The remainder comes from its share in the profits from the Africa Aerospace and Defence (AAD) Exhibition. Even so, the money available is completely inadequate to fund the size of infrastructure required to do what is necessary. In the case of CAASA, two fulltime employees are required to do the following: administer and market the association as well as six affiliated associations; communicate regularly with the membership, Government, the industry and the public; participate in the organisation of AAD, as well as attend a myriad of consultation meetings to represent the largest and most diverse sector in South African aviation.
As can be imagined, this is a nigh on impossible task with the resources available. Some things just cannot and do not get the attention they deserve. More funding would allow for more staff and much improved and expanded services. Yet the mindset persists where individuals and companies, contribute more resources and time to supporting their favourite sports team than they do to the aviation organisations that protect the interests of the industry about which they profess to be passionate.
Surely the time has arrived to explore new ways to fund these associations and clubs (outside of expecting them to do more to earn additional income or affect greater financial savings? So what options exist? One obvious source of income would be from Government. One of the main rationales for the existence of associations is to make it easier for Government to consult with one, hopefully informed, entity with a consolidated position as opposed to consulting with thousands of individuals each with divergent and sometimes uninformed opinions. This is why entities like the Department of Transport (DoT) and the South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) prefer to consult with representative stakeholder bodies such as CAASA, the Aero Club and AOPA . It makes consultation more manageable and therefore less time-consuming.
Also, it can be argued that the associations perform “work” for Government, the SACAA and the aviation service providers when the associations attend consultation meetings and check and comment on legislation and policy – work for which they are not currently remunerated. Maybe the “User Pay Principle” needs to be applied to the other side of the equation? It could be argued that just as the SACAA has an hourly rate of R450 per hour, the industry stakeholder bodies should charge the Government and SACAA on a similar basis for actual work done.
Another alternative would be for the SACAA to provide an annual grant to the associations. This type of funding could be justified in terms of the SACAA’s statutory mandate “...to promote civil aviation safety and security”. However, the downside of accepting such “payments ” or “handouts” is that this funding can be used as leverage to curtail fair criticism and compromise an associations independence. Situations can arise where the threat of withholding funding is used as a weapon to compel an association to abandon a particular standpoint, alternatively agree to something that is prejudicial to their membership. Yet possibly the most compelling option to rid the industry of the “free rider” element described above, would be to introduce a compulsory funding mechanism applicable to everyone similar to the one provided for in the “Closed Shop” principle in the labour relations environment.
If a “Closed Shop” agreement is applicable in a specific workplace sector, then every employee in that sector is obliged to become a member of the trade union which is party to the agreement. In terms of such an agreement, all employees in that workplace are compelled to pay an “agency ” fee to the representative union. The Labour Relations Act, however, does impose some restrictions on how a union may spend such fees. One may ask whether the Closed Shop principle contravenes the constitutional right to freedom of association?
The simple answer to this question seems to lie in the fact that more than 15 years has elapsed since the enactment of the LRA and 14 years since the Constitution came into being and yet the Closed Shop principle still remains part of our labour law and system. If South Africa were to introduce the “Closed Shop” principle to the system of aviation representation, it is sug gested that the Aviation Act 2009 could be amended to include a special chapter dealing with aviation representation and consultation.
This new chapter would especially provide as a condition to operate, that each aircraft owner or operator must, at a stipulated interval, provide proof to the Department of Transport of membership of a recognised aviation association or club or alternatively pay over to the DoT a prescribed fee to be used by the department to appoint a representative for this such party(ies) during consultation processes. Although the suggestion of the application of the Closed Shop principle to aviation representation might be extremely controversial and even offensive to some in the industry, it is hoped that the debate that this type of idea might stimulate will result in a more acceptable solution being found for funding the country ’s recognised aviation associations and clubs.
