THE MAGAZINE

[Scott Ducey]

[steen]

[Scott Ducey]

[trmckn]

[N3322G]

[Scott Ducey]

[trmckn]

[N3322G]

Tom,

Let me add some perspective about folks who've had their plane for 30-50 years. I've flown the Twin Comanche for 40 years now - 1 year with parents, 25 years with Mom and now, 14 years under my ownership. At age 60 I clearly see the need to reallocate ICS assets just as I reallocate my personal assets twice a year to make sure I will not outlive my finances.

Because various Comanche-experienced mechanics have made errors, I started to participate in the Comanche Forums so I could learn enough to better maintain the Twin. The worst problems came from mechanics who personally owned and maintained their own Twins - and know better. One got in a hurry and the other was either negligent or malicious.

At this point, because I can get the Mag online, I consider the published version, 'brain candy'. Owners need meat, potatoes and vegetables, and brain candy if it can be afforded. Those who want brain candy, need to be prepared to pay for it. Most chocolate candy bars have doubled in price in the past decade - ICS membership cost has not.

I continue to encourage the Board to make major changes in direction wrt resource allocation. Social interaction will happen at fly-ins and lead to exchange of Comanche-focused information and will continue to have value.

When the aging mechanics and STC owners retire, what will we do about things like engine baskets that Kosola overhauls or fuel caps that Webco has PMA'd or tip tank support when Osborne retires? This is why I continue to encourage the Board to reallocate resources towards type support. I don't 'see a problem' in 5 years, I see it now. If we wait 5 years, it will be too late.

To add to Scott's excellent quotes, "A stitch in time saves nine." from an English Proverb ... or Betsy Ross, take your pick.

[trmckn]

Hi Pat,

I certainly agree with what you're saying. I guess all that I was trying to get across is that I could imagine that a number of members out there aren't feeling the pain yet (either because they're not currently flying much, or because they've been pretty lucky with the support that they've gotten so far and it's just not in their nature to worry too much about it before there's a doomsday crisis that hits where it hurts). Not a very forward thinking strategy in my (and clearly your) opinion...

If it were really true however that there is a risk of losing these members by either raising the dues or getting rid of the magazine, then it's possible that one could argue that "caution is the better part of valor" to use another quote, assuming that it's better to die a slow death than a quick one. In this case though, the dues are so small in comparison with a tank of gas, I just don't buy that a doubling of dues would halve the membership for example. Well, the intro article in the current flyer says that this risk is what the core issue is, and I'll take that at face value until a plan can be hatched to demonstrate otherwise.

The only part that I do disagree with in the flyer intro, and the reason for originally posting on this thread in the first place, is this business of dissent devaluing the aircraft, or the vibe that Scott's original post was somehow out of line. If you google "twin comanche", both Scott's blog and an ICS article come up on the first page. I'd argue that Scott's blog does more to excite a potential new buyer of the type than the ICS article does...by an order of magnitude.

I'm getting too wordy again, so I'll stop here other than to say that I'm all for helping out with hatching that plan to demonstrate that either higher dues or moving the Flyer online wouldn't gut membership.

Tom

[Hansmeister]

Scott,

I had an idea of reducing the cost of the magazine, and passed that on to Kristen. I don't know if the idea has grown or not.

The yearly subscription cost for the Piper Flyer magazine is $40. So, I called Jennifer Dallenbush (sp?) to explore the idea of giving us a new cover, retaining the professionally written section of their current magazine, and providing 8 to 10 pages of Comanche specific information in the our current magazine, substituting what she has in the Piper Flyer.

In other words, tagging along with an existing publication but with our own specific content. By bringing our own Comanche specific advertising into play, my thought was that the Comanche Flyer would reincarnate from the roots of the Piper Flyer, perhaps for about $30 per year.

Jennifer was receptive to the idea.

This idea is based on the fact that the cost of the magazine must be less than current dues.

The BOD (past, present and probably future) insist that the Comanche Flyer must exist and can not be terminated. So, there needs a way to provide that, but at reduced cost.

[Scott Ducey]

Tom, thanks for the kind words, and yes I hear your point about what Bernie said. His implying that because I have a different idea, or have made suggestions contrary to his / the board in someway devalues the fleet is disappointing. I guess I am bad for Comanches since I disagree with him. I am not going to be like others that take great offense when someone behaves that way. If we had great leadership, Bernie would have allowed either Kris or me the opportunity to offer our own point in the Flyer. By doing so would suggest that he and the VP are interested and open to other ideas. They are not. They have no ideas, nor do they have any facts for their own position. That is why you never see the ICS President, Vice President or other members of the Board (excluding Bruce Thuman) wade into the forum. This is their own little club that they can control, and on some level feel important. We now have a dream team that includes a number of people that i have great respect for. I truly hope that they get something accomplished, but I do not know how anything substantial can be achieved WHEN the same group of people that don['t want to change are calling the shots.

Hans, I have nothing but the utmost respect and appreciation for the work that you do for our fleet. We need more individuals like yourself, Pat Barry, Zach Grant and others. I hope you understand that the whole idea of putting together this dream team of tech people is merely a means for the ICS Board to point to, so they can say, "see we are working on type support". The idea of tech support has been discussed, debated for years. Finally when someone actually did something, and presented a cogent idea (with financing)...i am referring to Kris Winter and myself...it was flatly rejected. They got cold feet when it was time to actually move on this issue. Forming yet another committee allows them to avoid making any kind of decision. Therefore, this yet again defers anything from being accomplished for several months, if not a year. I am aware of the suggestion that you make concerning the mag. While I will continue to be a member of ICS for now, I will no longer devote my time, money and energy helping a Board that lacks the ability to move from the past.

One final point. I have been talking with Jerry concerning my analysis of the magazine. Jerry is a smart guy, and feels that the way we should analyze the cost of the magazine is on a net basis meaning that we should present the expense of the magazine AFTER application of the advertising revenue it generates. While I explained to him that this is not the way we express numbers in financial statements, I would gladly put something together that reflects his approach. This is based on the 2008 financials. In 2008 ICS generated 304K in revenue. If Jerry wants to present the mag on a net basis, we would need to strip out the advertising revenue from the REVENUE components. Therefore the true revenue when netting-down the mag expense would now be $203K. The difference between the cost of the mag $180K and the advertising revenue of $101K, would be $79K. This would now be the expense under Jerry's method in lieu of $180K. His point is when you present the net numbers this way, the cost of the magazine is 39% of revenue being generated. In simple terms it looks like this

(See attached) - SORRY FOLKS. IT APPEARS THAT THIS SITE WILL NOT ALLOW AN ATTACHMENT CREATED IN WINDOWS VISTA. I WILL TRY TO ATTACH SOMETHING TONIGHT.


Jerry would suggest that the true cost of the magazine is 39%. My point is this is not the way financials are presented, and regardless of which way you look at it, we are spending a lot of money for a magazine that has 27 pages of advertisements, with the remaining pages consisting of a lot of pictures. More importantly, it is mostly a sentimental mag.

One final note, when you look at the financials, as presented by ICS 80% of revenues are consumed by expenses. Under Jerry's method, it is only 70%. I may have the math wrong here, but I believe employing this accounting approach distorts things, and this is why it is not employed in our presentation.

Best regards,

Scott

[DAVEG24]

I have to agree that the magazine is very disappointing. I used to look forward to reading it. I still enjoy receiving it right up to the moment where I open the cover and start reading. Five minutes later, I'm finished, and throw it in the stack. Last year, after a trip to Alaska, I wrote an (outline) article about the trip and submitted it to the Flyer. I got a response from the editor saying they already had another article to publish about a trip to Alaska and they didn't need mine. I thought that was ok, and have been looking for the other Alaska trip article ever since. Hasn't happened as far as I know. Maybe I missed it. In truth, I wouldn't miss the flyer magazine as it exists today. The cover pictures and the feature article are nice, but I would get by very nicely viewing that on the computer. As for communicating with the members, the internet is more timely and faster. Bottom line, I agree that the Flyer, as we presently know it, probably ought to go.

Dave Gitelman #866

[Kristin Winter]

Hans,

I did not follow up with Jennifer for two reasons. One, it would be a waste of both of our time with respect to ICS doing anything along these lines, and I have given up trying to teach the pig to sing. You warned me a couple of years ago that ICS wouldn't change. You were correct, though I am not sorry that I tried.

The other reason I didn't follow up is that after examining the options for type support, none of the feasible scenarios included a paper magazine. The internet is the way. It is the only way.

The only real question for ICS is how and when the magazine ends. Until the board is willing to acknowledge that fact and work to phase in those changes, you are just trying to teach the pig to sing. Good luck with that, but thanks for trying.

[Chris Kuyoth]

Scott & Dave G.

Couldn't agree more on your assessments of the Flyer. Reminds me of cheap crab cakes - all filler. Anymore, the magazine provides nothing more than a collection of possible paint schemes for the day that I run out of mechanical issues or avionics upgrades to address.

I really couldn't believe my eyes when I read Bernie's column. It started off suggesting that a change toward improved type support may be needed, then in a round about way, suggested that ICS was fulfilling its charter currently, then completed the 180 by chastising those who are pushing for a change??? To suggest that dissention among the ranks is devaluing our investments while ignoring the pleas for in-depth airworthiness support is quite ironic at best. Well at least he took a stand on the issue aye?

Chris

[Ray B]

I like that idea of Comanche stories in the Piper Flyer. Maybe some of those thousands of Cherokee drivers would get interested in flying a "sports car" instead of "the family sedan". What would that do for your Comanches value?