Roy Smith wrote:

We (the Westchester Flying Club, www.wfc-hpn.org) also have rules
limiting reservations, as I'm sure every other flying club in the world
does. Our work differently than yours do, but we're "one member, one
vote", and "one member, one quota". I don't think the idea that a
member could purchase more quota would go over very well with us.

I've a concern that this would be the case for the PFC too, but I cannot
really get a sense of why. It seems so reasonable an idea.

Can you explain why you think it'd not go over well?

Scheduling is a rather contentious issue. We've had members almost
total airplanes and had less said about it than if somebody violates our
scheduling quota rules.

Laugh I suspect that the same would be true at the PFC.

But, you say that what you've got works well for you. Given that it
works (which I define as keeping members from engaging in fist-fights at
meetings), I think you would be foolish to change anything.

Yes, well, there is that.

But I've been thinking about my own "upgrade path". What would I do next,
and why? Owning on my own would be a *huge* leap. Partnership?
Perhaps...but I like that the club has multiple aircraft. I like the
choices, and I like the "backup" (ie. I can still fly if an aircraft is in
annual).

So it seems like one possible upgrade is simply to a club with "more
availability". And that caused me to wonder about instead having a club
with "variable availability".

Wouldn't that make a club more attractive, in that a wider pool of potential
members would find the club meeting their goals?

- Andrew