Topic: BMFA rebuilds Hadrian's Wall

I am a member of 3 or 4 model clubs in Scotland, and the SAA and LMA.
I am also a member of a club in England, but I have been told that I will not be allowed to renew in 2012 due to BMFA policy.
The following is the relevant extract from the information sent to BMFA affiliated clubs by Dave Phipps, chief executive of the BMFA (a limited company).

From 2012, the SAA has decided to remain with the existing broker whilst we have decided to move.  This is clearly an added complication as we now have different insurers for our respective organisations.  On the face of it, it is probably correct that for the insurance arrangements to work, all members of SAA clubs will have to be SAA members and all members of BMFA clubs will have to be BMFA members.  However, I am still trying to find a ‘workaround’ for this as a matter of urgency.
I am employed solely to look after the interests of BMFA

 I underlined the relevant bit. Exactly the same thing applies to LMA members.

Are UK companies allowed to indulge in such anti-competitive behaviour? Not to mention racism. Isn’t the BMFA supposed to represent ALL british modellers, not just its own customers?  They are now putting commercial advantage to the fore and forgetting all responsibilities to the aeromodelling community.

There is no way in the world that I am going to succumb to this blackmail and pay the BMFA another £31 for double insurance, so I will go to events in England as a visitor instead. As Dave Phipps said, the SAA and LMA are sticking with the same proven insurance policy that the BMFA used last year, but with cover increased to £25million. It is not like we are using a new untrusted and unproven policy.
How many Scottish clubs, like mine, allow members to use BMFA membership for insurance if they so choose?

I can understand the different organisations wanting the best insurance deal for their members...that makes sense.
But, surely as long as you can prove that you have the relevent up to date insurance, what is the problem?  Does it matter whether the insurer is BMFA approved or SAA approved?

I also thaought that the B in BMFA stood for British, and the last time I looked Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were still part of Britain.

Another case or bureaucracy gone daft 

I take it that the English club is affiliated? So you have to be a Bmfa member. Can't you just use the Bmfa insurance in your other clubs and not have Saa? Bit of a closed shop situation with aunty bumfa. It annoys me that my Lma insurance is not accepted in aff. Clubs. Bmfa seem determined to cause rifts.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9300 using Tapatalk

As I live in Scotland, but am also a member of an English club, I belong to SAA and BMFA. If I'm unfortunate enough to have an accident I will let both know and let the insurers sort it out, but for the peanuts membership costs I think it well worth supporting both.
Mike

There is a lot of very tricky law around insurance, and the thing that gives the law the heebie-jebies is multiple insurers covering the same risk - it can end up with NEITHER insurer being liable, which is "a problem". So long as everyone used the same insurer it wasn't a problem, but for a number of reasons the BMFA has decided another insurer offers the members a better deal so they've moved. From the looks of things the full ramifications weren't appreciated at the time - hence the panic announcement. They're clearly looking for a work around, but have yet to find one.

The remarks about anti-competitive behaviour and racist discrimination are inappropriate and offensive, and I suggest the OP considers withdrawing them.

PDR

I don't know how many times we have to go over this on this forum.
The insurance company used by the BMFA provides additional cover to affiliated clubs and their members. You can't expect them to provide that cover if all the members are not paying them a premium.

Tom

I also thaought that the B in BMFA stood for British, and the last time I looked Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were still part of Britain.

Another case or bureaucracy gone daft 

Scottish clubs can choose to be affiliated to the BMFA if they want.

It doesn't look like anything to do with bureaucracy, simply business practices within the insurance industry & the BMFA getting the best deal for it's overall membership, which is what we should expect it to do. The fact that a workaround is being sought suggests that minority are not being ignored but they must be considered secondary to the majority if there is any conflict of interests. 

I don't know how many times we have to go over this on this forum.
The insurance company used by the BMFA provides additional cover to affiliated clubs and their members. You can't expect them to provide that cover if all the members are not paying them a premium.

Tom

We established in another thread that the LMA can also affiliate clubs, I suppose the SAA could do the same. Seems Aunty is losing her grip...as model fliers we want these associations to work together, not in competition. Mines paid for 2012, as is my LMA by the way. Total less than £1 per week....

We established in another thread that the LMA can also affiliate clubs, I suppose the SAA could do the same. Seems Aunty is losing her grip...as model fliers we want these associations to work together, not in competition. Mines paid for 2012, as is my LMA by the way. Total less than £1 per week....

But it's not the BMFA that has broken away.
I'm pretty sure the LMA and SMA will have simmilar conditions for joining their affiliated clubs and I believe you have to have LMA insurance to fly at an LMA event. If I'm wrong then the solution is for everyone to take out the BMFA insurance.


Tom

I am a member of 3 or 4 model clubs in Scotland, and the SAA and LMA.
I am also a member of a club in England, but I have been told that I will not be allowed to renew in 2012 due to BMFA policy.
The following is the relevant extract from the information sent to BMFA affiliated clubs by Dave Phipps, chief executive of the BMFA (a limited company).

From 2012, the SAA has decided to remain with the existing broker whilst we have decided to move.  This is clearly an added complication as we now have different insurers for our respective organisations.  On the face of it, it is probably correct that for the insurance arrangements to work, all members of SAA clubs will have to be SAA members and all members of BMFA clubs will have to be BMFA members.  However, I am still trying to find a ‘workaround’ for this as a matter of urgency.
I am employed solely to look after the interests of BMFA

 I underlined the relevant bit. Exactly the same thing applies to LMA members.

Are UK companies allowed to indulge in such anti-competitive behaviour? Not to mention racism. Isn’t the BMFA supposed to represent ALL british modellers, not just its own customers?  They are now putting commercial advantage to the fore and forgetting all responsibilities to the aeromodelling community.

There is no way in the world that I am going to succumb to this blackmail and pay the BMFA another £31 for double insurance, so I will go to events in England as a visitor instead. As Dave Phipps said, the SAA and LMA are sticking with the same proven insurance policy that the BMFA used last year, but with cover increased to £25million. It is not like we are using a new untrusted and unproven policy.
How many Scottish clubs, like mine, allow members to use BMFA membership for insurance if they so choose?

I have underlined and embolded a very relevent bit that you missed.    As a BMFA member I want the officers and employees of the BMFA to get the best possible deal for us members when it comes to insurance, the new insurance is greatly improved so the CEO has done his job!!

Your comments about anti-competitive behaviour and racism are too silly to be worth commenting on.

Seems Aunty is losing her grip...as model fliers we want these associations to work together, not in competition.

They do work together in a number of areas, however an opportunity was there to get an improved insurance deal, not to get the best deal available for BMFA members would mean those who in effect work for us the members are not doing their job correctly. I assume the LMA and SAA have done all they can and believe they have got the best deal for their members too.

The whole insurance thing is very odd. If I crash a model into a car on the scottish border at an LMA flyin, who pays if I am BMFA, LMA and SAA?

There is a lot of very tricky law around insurance, and the thing that gives the law the heebie-jebies is multiple insurers covering the same risk - it can end up with NEITHER insurer being liable, which is "a problem".

PDR

You've got me worried now, Peter. I belong to both for the reasons I mentioned, but perhaps I should drop my BMFA membership, but I really would prefer to support both.
Mike

You've got me worried now, Peter. I belong to both for the reasons I mentioned, but perhaps I should drop my BMFA membership, but I really would prefer to support both.
Mike

Not something a lot of us can do- my club is BMFA aff. and I also fly with the LMA. Between a rock and a hard place, I believe. Can Big A enlighten us?

The whole insurance thing is very odd. If I crash a model into a car on the scottish border at an LMA flyin, who pays if I am BMFA, LMA and SAA?

The fact it occured on the Scottish border is irrelevent, as the BMFA is a global insurance as I'm pretty sure the others are. Therefore you would have to claim off all three, informing them of the other claims. The most likley outcome would be; they would each pay one third of the claim.

 Tom

The fact it occured on the Scottish border is irrelevent, as the BMFA is a global insurance as I'm pretty sure the others are. Therefore you would have to claim off all three, informing them of the other claims. The most likley outcome would be; they would each pay one third of the claim.

 Tom

but TWO of them are the same insurance...bit unfair, do you think?

i dont think it will affect me directly just now but i can see how this can become a problem

but TWO of them are the same insurance...bit unfair, do you think?

No. The insurance companies make the own deals/ agreements. It's up to them how they sort it out.
One insurance is getting two premiums to the others one so shouldn't they pay two thirds?

 Tom

i dont think it will affect me directly just now but i can see how this can become a problem

How?

Tom

How?

Tom

im a member of saa and only saa clubs, but i am not a member of any bmfa clubs at present but could be in the future

im a member of saa and only saa clubs, but i am not a member of any bmfa clubs at present but could be in the future

Apart from the fact you wold have to join the BMFA, I don't see a problem. Don't worry about having two insurances as there is no chance that will cause you to be uninsured.


Tom

As far as I can see there is nothing to stop the LMA and the SAA using the BMFA insurers. The BMFA insurance, appears to me, to be the best one, so why don't the SAA and LMA accept it?....or am I missing something?
Pete

As far as I can see there is nothing to stop the LMA and the SAA using the BMFA insurers. The BMFA insurance, appears to me, to be the best one, so why don't the SAA and LMA accept it?....or am I missing something?
Pete

Possibly the BMFA, being the larger, got a better deal.

Possibly the BMFA, being the larger, got a better deal.

Quite agree Bobt. So why don't the two other organisations accept that a member of theirs is insured through the BMFA.

Pete

I have no idea....

If the BMFA is the British association and Scotland is part of Britain (least last time I looked) why is there an SAA?   

Is it 'cos some Scot's don't like being British?   

Would a simple solution be for the SAA to affiliate to the BMFA?

Also, when I went to the States, BMFA told me my insurance covered me to fly there.  Tell that to the AMA   

2p

Jerry

Until someone who is directly involved in the decision(s) to  stay with one company or move away another comes along to enlighten us on the specific reason for the decisions taken, then everything is mere speculation and assertions that one will be better than another has, as far as I can see, no basis whatsoever.

I am fairly sure that those in the BMA /LMA / SAA will have looked after the interests of their members and that a member of any of those organisations will be insured to fly anywhere in the UK, so I feel able to sleep soundly.

Isn't it the case that an affiliated club requires all members to be members of the BMFA but non the less guests at say, a fly in or event are accepted if showing 'alternative' membership / insurance.??

stu k

I would imagine its bugger all to do with the insurance and down to the organisations.

If you belong an SAA club then its only natural you have their insurance.

Horses for Courses - If I fly at an LMA show I have to accept that I need to pay my dues to them... Even though I'm already covered by the BMFA.

We were asked last year about insurance for out show - as long as we undertook to check each pilot's membership was current, it mattered not who the chap was insured with. But the onus is then on the show organiser to check which is why we accepted BMFA and LMA as we were confident we could check cards on those.

Chris

Quite agree Bobt. So why don't the two other organisations accept that a member of theirs is insured through the BMFA.

Pete

the same as the a BMFA affiliated club can't accept their insurance. It will be a condition of the insurance policy.

  Tom

I take it that the English club is affiliated? Can't you just use the Bmfa insurance in your other clubs and not have Saa? Bit of a closed shop situation with aunty bumfa.

No I can't. I am in 3 Scottish clubs, one of which is "SAA only", always has been, for admin reasons. But I joined knowing that so fair enough.
No, my objection is that I have effectively been removed from a club, not as part of club policy but through an edict from the BMFA which forces this upon the club (a very friendly and civilised bunch) against their will.

No I can't. I am in 3 Scottish clubs, one of which is "SAA only", always has been, for admin reasons. But I joined knowing that so fair enough.
No, my objection is that I have effectively been removed from a club, not as part of club policy but through an edict from the BMFA which forces this upon the club (a very friendly and civilised bunch) against their will.

 

Tom

The BMFA are duty bound to try and get the best insurance deal for its members, this has been done and has meant a change of insurers.  It would have been remiss not to take on the enhanced insurance. It is unfortunate that a small number may have these issues, however as the initial post says a workaround is being sought!!

The insurance company used by the BMFA provides additional cover to affiliated clubs and their members. You can't expect them to provide that cover if all the members are not paying them a premium.
Tom

They always have in the past, as has the SAA. It is part of being a model club, and part of being the body which is supposed to support aeromodelling in the UK.
The BMFA seems to have stopped being that and decided it is a greedy commercial organisation.

They always have in the past, as has the SAA. It is part of being a model club, and part of being the body which is supposed to support aeromodelling in the UK.
The BMFA seems to have stopped being that and decided it is a greedy commercial organisation.

Sorry Alisdair, your last sentence there is just plain wrong and just a bit silly, the BMFA are non profit making. Non profit making and "greedy commercial organisation" don't go together at all.

I take it you would be happy for the SAA to not try and get the best deal for their members??

And while they're at it - tell the SAA to keep their hands off Surrey's oil...

PDR

They always have in the past, as has the SAA. It is part of being a model club, and part of being the body which is supposed to support aeromodelling in the UK.
The BMFA seems to have stopped being that and decided it is a greedy commercial organisation.

The BMFA is not a commecial organisation. They have negotiated a better deal for it's members. The fact, for whatever reason, the SAA  stayed the previous insurers is not the fault of the BMFA, but, unfortunately, at the moment it prevents them offering membership to SAA members. It would appear from your OP that they are trying to remedy this, so I think you are being, more than, a little unjust in condeming them.
I also think your comments are uncalled for and say more about you, than they do about the BMFA.


Tom

am a bit confused now. who is the SMA? is that meant to be SAA? 

am a bit confused now. who is the SMA? is that meant to be SAA? 

Yes!  Brain fart

Corrected now 
Tom

Yes!  Brain fart


Tom

cool  i think i am still following

But it's not the BMFA that has broken away.
I'm pretty sure the LMA and SMA will have simmilar conditions for joining their affiliated clubs and I believe you have to have LMA insurance to fly at an LMA event. If I'm wrong then the solution is for everyone to take out the BMFA insurance.
Tom 

Actually it WAS the BMFA who broke away and negotiated a new deal, but it was one that was not suitable to the much smaller organisations (SAA and LMA).

As Dave Phipps mentioned, the SAA and LMA benefitted too, as we got much the same terms from our old insurer as the BMFA got.
Have any of the posters who are sounding off about the amazing new deal actually compared the deals side by side as the LMA Committee did? Or are you just quoting the sales hype?  (I don't have them side by side either, but I can smell sales pitch)

Sorry Big A. 
The BMFA is indeed established as a non profit organisation, but it IS a company isn't it?. On a recent post about 2012 fees there was some comment about that, and the implications of raising the fees too much would make them liable for some kind of tax (was it corporation tax or what?)