Ed. Note: As this newsletter was being sent to subscribers, AOPA announced its picks to fill two open positions on the board of trustees. They are Peter Burwell, the leader of Burwell Enterprises, a holding company with interests in hospitality, manufacturing, and material handling, and Ryan Samples, founder of BankOnIT, which specializes in Cloud and IT infrastructure for banks. Burwell flies a Baron and a Skywagon; Samples flies a V35 Bonanza, Carbon Cub, Icon A5, and a Citation CJ4. Below is former AOPA Vice President Peter Bowers’s take on the May 12 meeting that will confirm them as full members of the board of trustees, replacing former chairs Jim Hauslein and Bill Trimble.
In the spirit of full disclosure that AOPA itself seems to struggle with lately, the organization’s 2026 Annual Member Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 12, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. at the National Aviation Community Center (the “NACC”), 296 Bucheimer Rd., Frederick, Maryland.
Members who actually want to show up must sign up in advance to attend and that information seems to be scarce on AOPA’s website. Here’s the link. For those flying in, you’ll need to call Signature Aviation FDK for a parking reservation.
Recent Context: Governance Shakeup and Member Pushback
This year’s gathering comes at a pivotal—and somewhat turbulent—time for AOPA. Just weeks ago, on April 10, AOPA released potential changes to its bylaws, seeking member feedback on everything from trustee nominations and term limits to qualifications for board service. These proposals follow a noticeable leadership shakeup in March, when longtime Board Chairman Jim Hauslein announced he was stepping down (along with former Chair Bill Trimble), and the board elected Luke Wippler as the new chairman.
The changes are framed as responses to member requests for fresher perspectives and stronger governance. Hauslein himself noted the need to “continually innovate” to protect AOPA’s legacy. That’s a nice sentiment—especially amid broader conversations in the GA community about how well the organization is serving its rank-and-file pilots versus larger interests.
Social media and member forums have been buzzing with talk of this meeting potentially seeing more actual member attendance than in recent memory. One post put it bluntly: This could be a “first (at least in a long time)—actual members showing up!!”
What Members Are Asking About
Expect pointed questions on the hot-button issues, especially given the numbers flying around in member discussions:
Membership: How did AOPA go from a high of over 414,000 members (around 2010) to today’s significantly lower count? Leadership should come prepared with the exact current number—and a credible plan to reverse the dramatic decline. With GA facing headwinds, retaining (and attracting) everyday pilots seems more critical than ever, rather than appearing to focus on high-end users.
Finances: Transparency around dues, spending priorities, and overall fiscal health. Reports suggest AOPA is operating at a substantial loss—approaching $8 million in the red—while EAA recently released 2025 numbers showing a healthy profit of nearly $5 million. Members will want straight answers on why one major GA organization is bleeding cash while the other turns a solid surplus and what that means for dues and program sustainability (like Pilot Protection Services and You Can Fly).
Governance and Leadership: The proposed bylaw tweaks on nominations, terms, and qualifications will likely dominate discussion. Members have a chance to weigh in via feedback forms and in person (or by proxy).
AOPA’s leadership is expected to deliver a “state of general aviation” update, and there will be trustee elections. Details on directions, proxies, and RSVP options are available through that hard-won link.
Whether this meeting marks a genuine step toward greater openness or just another checkbox exercise remains to be seen. If you’re a member, show up, ask the tough questions, and hold the board accountable. After all, it’s your association—and your dues funding it. Fly safe, and see you in Frederick (if the transparency fog lifts).
Is there an alternative proxy we can appoint who will be at the meeting and represent the member interests listed in this article?
I will be at the the meeting.
I have just emailed the following to memberservices@aopa.org
I appoint Peter Bowers, as my agent and proxy to vote for me at any meeting of members of the AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION upon any business to come before the meeting. This proxy is valid for up to thirty-six (36) months unless sooner revoked.
[my name]
AOPA Membership Number 00983409
Are you serving as a proxy for other members?
I can (and have a few)
– PB
I’d like answers on how much money they spent on their corporate jet over the last 2 decades and how often their presidents flew it instead of taking commercial. What they are doing to attract talent from outside the narrow hallways of Frederick MD, How they intend to implement by-law changes, which honestly look illusory and not serious. And finally, what plan do they have to turn membership around. That’s the biggest issue. If not, turn out the lights and go home.
The only bylaw reform I really care about is conveniently missing from the proposals. I want the ability to vote as an individual member for whom I choose for trustees. Given today’s technology, there is no excuse for not providing either electronic voting, as most corporations do today, or mail in voting as organizations like NRA have done for decades. This policy of having an existing trustee as the proxy for a hundred thousand members or more is simply unconscionable.
I have been a member for 47 years and likely will let my membership lapse at renewal in July as I see no real proposals that allow the members to have a real voice in the direction of AOPA.
When you ask questions in headlines, the answer is almost always ‘no.’
Liberal-aligned leaders tend to emphasize symbolic inclusion, progressive narratives, and identity-driven initiatives. They substitute symbolic policies, performative allyship, and rhetoric about values for durable structural change. Often the members witness high-profile diversity/inclusion campaigns, public virtue signaling, mission language focused on justice/equity. Members feel spoken-for rather than served and resources are diverted to visibility and narrative management.
Institutions that value moral signaling or brand identity (e.g., advocacy groups, universities) are more exposed to liberal-style performative capture. Weak governance, concentrated power, and poor transparency are common risk factors regardless of ideology.
When liberal‑aligned leaders prioritize symbolic signaling, identity narratives, or high‑visibility initiatives over delivering core services and tangible member benefits, members stop seeing value in staying and leave. The results are:
Resources shift from member‑facing programs to branding, events, or virtue‑signals that don’t meet members’ needs.
Communications emphasize values and intentions rather than measurable outcomes, so members perceive rhetoric as empty.
Leaders claim to represent members’ identities or causes but centralize decisions and ignore practical feedback, making members feel spoken‑for, not served.
Promotions and rewards favor loyalty to the leader’s narrative over competence in serving members, degrading service quality.
Metrics are redefined to show progress on symbolic goals while core KPIs decline unnoticed. Longstanding members who joined for services or governance feel sidelined by new identity or PR priorities.
Highly visible stances can alienate moderate or pragmatic members, shrinking the base to a narrower, less sustainable cohort.
Repeated symbolic gestures without follow‑through create distrust; members disengage and social proof declines, accelerating attrition.
Seems to describe what was done to the NRA by what could only have been woke, “liberal-aligned” leaders.
My review of the proposed bylaw changes and recommended modifications:
BL IV§2. Establish that the Nominating Committee should have not less than two trustees and no more than 1/3 of the members of the Board.
Recommended Change/addition: The Nominating Committee shall have at least two at large members selected by the AOPA membership through a solicitation and ballot of the entire membership.
Rationale: The present board opines that setting a floor and ceiling on the NC’s size ensures a large enough committee to bring a meaningful cross-section of Board perspectives. This approach demonstrates the board has the real potential to remain insular, whether or not that was the intent. Given the recent history, it is my opinion the board should have membership voice and vote on its nominating committee outside of the present board to insure it does meet its stated goal of bringing a meaning by including member input.
As it is presently written, the change retains substantial power in the NC, as it must under Change 2 continue to approve candidates. Members under Change 2 may submit names for potential candidates, but it is not clear that the NC must submit all candidates under Change 2 or its selected subset.
BL IV§6 Proxies. Deadlines. Establishing a deadline for proxy submission before the annual meeting should be rejected. Requiring proxy submission in advance could allow a board to plan decisions and hold them until after a proxy submission deadline, before taking action.
Recommendation: The obvious solution to this is to allow directed proxies by ballot as is presently done by publicly traded entities by recording member votes on both board and member proposals electronically through a verifiable process.
One of the main draws if proxies is that the direction of a whole association is decided by a handful of chosen ones. In this case, there appears to be a minimum net-worth requirement to become a prestigious leader.
While each of the new faces may be well known and regarded in their local community, the broader mass of peeps struggling to keep AVgas in their wings and insurance paid up, remains in the dark.
I gave up on pretty much all associations just as soon as I figured out that most all of them are lead by people who have lost touch with reality and the very people they claim to represent.
In my book the AOPA chapter was closed 20 years ago with a promise not to look again until the association stops being a overpriced one stop convenience store and focusses 90% of its effort on its core mission statement.
That is ADVOCACY. Nothing else matters.