SAA vs. EAA

All who complain about Tom's wages, it sounds like jealousy. What does
the CEO of Halliburton or Enron make? I BET it's more than $188K. I
don't really see it as Tom getting rich off the backs of volunteers,
though. EAA has a lot of paid employees beside Tom. The reason they
need volunteers is because they don't have enough staff to effectively
do all the stuff needed for the annual convention. They have to help
hundreds of thousands of people in that one week. I also don't think
Tom just sits behind his desk all day looking at pretty pictures on the
wall. He does lobby for general aviation interests and these days, I'll
BET that's a full time job plus. I still miss Paul as head of EAA as I
find him MUCH more personable and genuinely interested in us little
guys, but Paul couldn't do it forever...

Scott


Drew Dalgleish wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:58:54 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:


Kyle Boatright wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...


TaxSrv wrote:



" jls" wrote:



I doubt it. Do you know how much the officers are paid,
by chance?

I think they're ashamed to say.


Ashamed or not, they must by law place this info into the public
record. For the YE 2/28/03, EAA paid Tom Poberezny $188,080 plus a
pension contribution. Other officers were not compensated. The 5
highest paid executives were paid between $94K and $164K, none of whom
appear related to the Poberezny's. From the EAA Aviation Foundation
(museum, educational activities, and recipient of gifts/bequests), Tom
P. was paid $190,081 plus pension contr, with other officers similarly
unpaid but various other compensated executives.

Fred F.


That's one reason I dropped my EAA membership a few years ago. The
salaries are not at all in line.

Matt


In line with what? Depending on your industry/role/etc, there are plenty of
jobs out there that pay well over $100k. I'm not saying it is a good thing
for folks working at a non-profit to rake in the bucks, but it isn't like
these guys get stock options, etc. like lots of folks in the corporate world
do...

KB



Most folks in the corporate world (not all as we all know!) have fairly
well documented performance objectives that they must hit to make their
money. I'd like to see Tom's performance objectives.


Matt


Most folks in the cororate world aren't getting rich off the backs of
volunteers just out to better their passion for aviation

Scott wrote...

All who complain about Tom's wages, it sounds like jealousy.

I'm not complaining, I'm trying to make an informed decision.
Do you know how much he's paid? Where can I find it in the
annual report to the membership?

Dave 'paperhangar' Hyde

Scott wrote:

All who complain about Tom's wages, it sounds like jealousy. What does
the CEO of Halliburton or Enron make? I BET it's more than $188K. I
don't really see it as Tom getting rich off the backs of volunteers,
though. EAA has a lot of paid employees beside Tom. The reason they
need volunteers is because they don't have enough staff to effectively
do all the stuff needed for the annual convention. They have to help
hundreds of thousands of people in that one week. I also don't think
Tom just sits behind his desk all day looking at pretty pictures on the
wall. He does lobby for general aviation interests and these days, I'll
BET that's a full time job plus. I still miss Paul as head of EAA as I
find him MUCH more personable and genuinely interested in us little
guys, but Paul couldn't do it forever...

After being in AOPA for many years and then EAA for many years, I found
AOPA MUCH more effective in the area of lobbying so I've stuck with them
adn dropped EAA. I'm sure Boyer makes a pretty penny as well, but it
sure seems that AOPA is FAR more effective in lobbying than EAA. I just
didn't see much value from my EAA membership as opposed to AOPA.


Matt

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 06:53:29 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:



After being in AOPA for many years and then EAA for many years, I found
AOPA MUCH more effective in the area of lobbying so I've stuck with them
adn dropped EAA. I'm sure Boyer makes a pretty penny as well, but it
sure seems that AOPA is FAR more effective in lobbying than EAA. I just
didn't see much value from my EAA membership as opposed to AOPA.


that is probably because you joined for the wrong reason.

now if you were a homebuilder trying to find out whether canadian
yellow cedar was suitable for carving propellors you'd find AOPA
totally bloody useless.

Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot wrote:

now if you were a homebuilder trying to find out whether canadian
yellow cedar was suitable for carving propellors you'd find AOPA
totally bloody useless.

Uhh, with the exception of some *VERY* old reprints of of the experimenter
and some of the old EAA codgers around here, I'd have to say that the EAA
was just as useless as the AOPA for such information.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

"Dave Hyde" wrote:

I'm not complaining, I'm trying to make an informed decision.
Do you know how much he's paid? Where can I find it in the
annual report to the membership?

The annual report to membership has little detail, but you can find it
their IRS Forms 990 which are a public record. One online source is
guidestar.org. Tom P., for the fiscal year ending in '03, received a
total of $378,161, plus $55,884 in retirement plan contributions, from
two of the several nonprofit corporations comprising "EAA." This
amount is consistent with prior years also.

Fred F.

Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 06:53:29 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:



After being in AOPA for many years and then EAA for many years, I found
AOPA MUCH more effective in the area of lobbying so I've stuck with them
adn dropped EAA. I'm sure Boyer makes a pretty penny as well, but it
sure seems that AOPA is FAR more effective in lobbying than EAA. I just
didn't see much value from my EAA membership as opposed to AOPA.



that is probably because you joined for the wrong reason.

now if you were a homebuilder trying to find out whether canadian
yellow cedar was suitable for carving propellors you'd find AOPA
totally bloody useless.

Stealth Pilot

True, but I found EAA not all that useful for homebuilding either. I,
despite the recent claims here, find Kitplanes more useful than Sport
Pilot, or whatever the EAA rag is called these days.


Matt

I don't believe specific wages are published in the annual reports.
Wages are set by the Board of Directors and should be in the Bylaws.
Members should be able to view corporate documents during normal
business hours or by making a request and paying for photocopies.

Here are a few links to see what some Corporate Officers are paid:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=HAL (Halliburton)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=XEL (Xcel Energy)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=F (Ford Motor Company)

Dave, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but what kind of informed decision
are you having to make? Are you deciding what organizations to belong
to based on CEO salary rather than what the organization itself stands
for and the services they provide to the members?

Scott


Dave Hyde wrote:
Scott wrote...


All who complain about Tom's wages, it sounds like jealousy.


I'm not complaining, I'm trying to make an informed decision.
Do you know how much he's paid? Where can I find it in the
annual report to the membership?

Dave 'paperhangar' Hyde

Fair enough! I was in AOPA many years back and I thought they catered
more to the high performance and twin engine crowd (neither of which I
belong to). For ME, EAA is still the closest thing to the type of
flying I do. I haven't checked on AOPA recently, so maybe they have
started having more articles about Cubs, Champs, RV-4s, VPs, Quicksilver
MXs, etc.

Scott

Matt Whiting wrote:

Scott wrote:

All who complain about Tom's wages, it sounds like jealousy. What
does the CEO of Halliburton or Enron make? I BET it's more than
$188K. I don't really see it as Tom getting rich off the backs of
volunteers, though. EAA has a lot of paid employees beside Tom. The
reason they need volunteers is because they don't have enough staff to
effectively do all the stuff needed for the annual convention. They
have to help hundreds of thousands of people in that one week. I also
don't think Tom just sits behind his desk all day looking at pretty
pictures on the wall. He does lobby for general aviation interests
and these days, I'll BET that's a full time job plus. I still miss
Paul as head of EAA as I find him MUCH more personable and genuinely
interested in us little guys, but Paul couldn't do it forever...


After being in AOPA for many years and then EAA for many years, I found
AOPA MUCH more effective in the area of lobbying so I've stuck with them
adn dropped EAA. I'm sure Boyer makes a pretty penny as well, but it
sure seems that AOPA is FAR more effective in lobbying than EAA. I just
didn't see much value from my EAA membership as opposed to AOPA.


Matt

Scott wrote:

All who complain about Tom's wages, it sounds like jealousy. What
does the CEO of Halliburton or Enron make? I BET it's more than
$188K.

For one thing, The $188K is only part of it. He also gets a pile from
other affiliated EAA foundations etc. Don't forget the retirement,
health and other benefits plus a huge expense account

You can't really believe that running the EAA is anywhere near the
responsibility of the CEO of Haliburton or Enron do you? Start looking
at much smaller companies which have simular cash flows and simular
numbers of employees. Even there, Tom has less responsibility because
his decisions involve much less risk. A bad CEO decision can bankrupt
a company. A bad decision by Tom is at worst a setback and not the end
of the EAA because the income is almost guarenteed to continue. It's
not a real competitive business that has to take risks to get income.
I think you will find Tom is way overpaid

The temporary influx of volenteers doesn't count for much because those
volenteers are managed by other volenteers and by EAA staff that is
already on the payroll anyway. Tom doesn't handle much of that
personally