#LessBS
British Skydiving needs to cut costs, not raise fees.
Campaign on hold...
Tony Crilly (new chair) has asked me to give him some time.
I believe he is comitted to reforming BS and I don't want to make that task harder. So I wish him luck, and I'll refrain from pushing this campaign. I hope that in a year we'll see signs of a leaner BS that is moving in the right direction.
Vote no to the membership fee increase.
The Problem
British Skydiving has become bloated and unresponsive to its members and drop zones.
Every time I have been to the AGM, British Skydiving increases membership fees. CEO Rob offers cursory explanations at best.
Drop zones bear the brunt of this, especially through the per-tandem fee. Those costs are passed on, making skydiving more expensive for everyone.
One key Dropzone operator has given up on BS. They have decided to go the CAA directly. BS seems to have its head in the sand. Instead of recognising an existential crisis - they're carrying on as if nothing has happened.
Staff Are Expensive
| Organisation | Members | Staff | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canadian Parachute Assoc. | ~3,000 | 2 | 1:1,500 |
| USPA (USA) | ~40,000 | ~20 | 1:2,000 |
| British Skydiving | ~4,500 | 13 (hiring 2 more) | 1:300 |
British Skydiving employs one staff member for every 300 members. The USPA manages with one per 2,000. The Canadians run their entire operation with just two people.
And yet British Skydiving is recruiting more staff, including a "Safety and Insight Analyst" to join the existing FOUR safety staff. Meanwhile, money flows to vanity projects like the Ambassador Programme.
Wages are the largest expense for BS. Last year they went up by £90k from £390k to £480k. Presumably more staff would mean further increases.
Many not-for-profit organisations set executive pay based on organisational size and turnover. This creates a perverse incentive: it's hard to motivate a CEO to shrink an organisation when their salary depends on it staying big.
What's At Stake
BS announced in the review this year that one dropzone operator is not renewing next year. Presumably, this is GoSkydive - possibly the largest operator in the UK. They're going to be regulated directly by the CAA. British Skydiving isn't acting as if it recognises the extraordinary failure this represents.
Their biggest operator just left. More will be tempted if BS does not fix the problem. This is an emergency. BS had a monopoly - all the cards were stacked in their favour - but they managed to alienate where they should have listened.
It would have been far better if British Skydiving pre-emptively met the needs of drop zones and members, rather than waiting for a crisis. But now that a crisis is here - they need to act.
Vote No at the AGM
Send a clear message: British Skydiving cannot take its members or drop zones for granted.
Vote no to the membership fee increase.
What Next?
Financially, a single vote won't make much difference - but hopefully it acts as an important symbolic vote to an organisation that isn't used to hearing 'No'.
Josh, Gareth and Noel all campaigned to be elected on the basis that BS has become distant from its members and drop zones. Now they have been elected, perhaps they can point to this vote as evidence that BS needs to take them seriously.
I would like to see British Skydiving take a hard look at its cost structure and dramatically reduce the activities it performs and the costs it incurs.
- Dramatically cut staff costs
- Pass savings on to drop zones through reduced tandem fees
- Reduce membership fees for individuals
Drastic action is needed to make British Skydiving sustainable and fit for purpose.
More...
Q: But it’s only 4%?
A: Yes. They’re asking for a small increase this year. That’s good — they only have to find a small saving if we vote no. They can easily absorb 4%, then go away and figure out how to find say 50% savings in non-insurance costs for next year.
Q: Why is a dropzone leaving?
A: According to Craig "the PTO feels that their students are over-insured, and contribute to aspects of our service...that they wouldn't necessarily wish to support, such as our discretionary spending". He goes on "It is a sentiment that resonates somewhat with other PTOs ...they also desire change". He recognises the problem - but no suggestion of change has been given by either Craig or Rob (who doesn't even mention this massive failure in his review of the year).
Q: Why should I care if a "Tandem Factory" is leaving?
A: Tandem fees are the majority of BS income. They're a significant expense for Dropzones. If one operator has set up an alternative system, then presumably they're saving a chunk of money. Dropzones are hard businesses to run - and others may be tempted to save money on their tandem operations too. It isn't clear what that would mean for sport jumpers - but it could potentially mean more tandem-only operators who have moved to a tandem-only regulatory setup