Andrew Gideon wrote:
Can you explain why you think it'd not go over well?

Well, I don't know much about the PFC, other than having been aware of
it's existance for quite a while, so I can only guess that my
assumptions make sense in your environment. But, be that as it may,
here goes...

A flying club is a social organization.

Certainly, there is a financial aspect to it, in that people with like
interests have gotten together to pool their financial resources
allowing them to do things they couldn't otherwise afford to do. The
same is true of many kinds of non-profit clubs (yacht clubs, golf clubs,
etc, etc). But, that's not the only motivation.

There is real value in the social aspects of a club. You get to know
other people with similar interests. Some will become your good
friends, others you may not like very much at all. Most will fall
somewhere in between. If you allow somebody to buy more rights than
somebody else, the financial aspects quickly overwhelm the social
aspects.

Interestingly enough, my club recently reorganized itself to do away
with membership classes. We used to have 3 classes, based on which
planes you could fly. Class A only had rights to the 152, Class B had
rights to all the fixed gears, Class C had rights to fly everything.
Each class payed a different initiation fee and monthly dues, with the
intention that each class would be self-supporting.

Every member, regardless of class, had one vote on all club business.
If anything, this was the reverse of what you're proposing (people who
paid less got the same representation and scheduling quota). Yet, there
was still a certain amount of discontent. If we voted to buy a new
radio for the Arrow, the Class A & B members felt put out since we were
using club funds to upgrade a resource they couldn't use. In theory,
the classes were self-funding, but the discontent still existed.

A few years ago, we sold the 152, so we ended up with only two classes
(B & C). Then, about a year ago, a proposal was floated to do away with
the class structure completely. To my thinking (I am/was a C member),
it made no sense financially for somebody who only wanted to fly the
fixed gears to want to merge classes. They would end up paying more in
monthly dues and fly the same airplanes. Likewise, I would see a dues
decrease (the merged class dues would be roughly the average of B & C
dues) with no decrease in benefits. Surprisingly (to my thinking,
anyway), the proposal was wildly popular with B members, and passed by a
wide margin. I think that showed that the social aspects were a more
powerful driver than the pure financial ones.

I belong to an investment club, which, while somewhat penny-ante in
scale, is organized like a mutual fund. We all pay in varying amounts
of capital and have voting power proportional to the number of shares we
own. This is sort of what you're proposing. Interestingly enough, we
have some people in the club who are always looking for ways to limit
the power of a small number of people. Despite the fact this this is an
overtly and intentionally finance-driven setup, people still have a
deep-rooted feeling that a minority of the members should not be able to
impose their will on the majority. There's just something about human
nature that works that way.

I think you would find that if you allowed different people to buy
different numbers of shares, it would negatively impact the social
aspects of your club, and in the long run would probably be a mistake.
The same with allowing a secondary market in quota trading.

Now, as for your upgrade path, I have a suggestion. Come join the WFC.
Your costs would go up, as you'd be paying dues to both the PFC and the
WFC, but you'd have access to more planes, and get exposure to a wider
ranges of types. And, you'd enjoy greater scheduling availability since
you'd be able to draw on both your PFC and WFC quotas.

BTW, what made you guys move out of TEB?