Motor Home Amendment Invalid

[wkerfoot]

If I belonged to a Ford Model T club, I would expect the officers to own a Ford Model T, if I belonged to a Ford Model A club, I would expect the officers to own a Ford Model A, if I belonged to a Packard club, I would expect the officers to own a Packard, if I belonged to a Ford Thunderbird club, I would expect the officers to own a Ford Thunderbird. All of these vehicles have been discontinued.

Why is it mean spirited and unreasonable to expect the officers of an Airstream club to own an Airstream?

Just my personal opinion.

Bill

[moosetags]

The car clubs are a little different than WBCCI. I belong to the Classic Thunderbird Club International (CTCI) and two different national Ford Model A Clubs (MARC & MAFCA), and have been a member of these clubs for 20+ years. Yes, I own a 1956 Thunderbird and a 1931 Model A Ford. Ownership of these vehicles is not, however, required to be a member or to hold office in the club. Just having an interest in the vehicles is sufficient to be a member; just pay your dues and you're in. On the other hand, WBCCI requires ownership of an Airstream product to be a member.

At a CTCI Convention only Classic Thunderbirds can be shown for judging, but all members can participate in the convention with or without a car to show. You can even bring your classic Corvette to one of these conventions and display it in another area.

Maybe WBCCI could take a lesson from the car clubs and open up membership to anyone with an interest in Airstreams and willing to pay the dues. This may even serve to significantly increase membership. All members, even without an Airstream, could attend and participate in events. The only restriction would be that they could not park with the Airstreams.

[Buzzy4]

Originally Posted by wkerfoot

If I belonged to a Ford Model T club, I would expect the officers to own a Ford Model T, if I belonged to a Ford Model A club, I would expect the officers to own a Ford Model A, if I belonged to a Packard club, I would expect the officers to own a Packard, if I belonged to a Ford Thunderbird club, I would expect the officers to own a Ford Thunderbird. All of these vehicles have been discontinued.

Why is it mean spirited and unreasonable to expect the officers of an Airstream club to own an Airstream?

Just my personal opinion.

Bill

Could it be that this non-Airstream SOB motorhome thing is a diversionary tactic in the name change war?

After all, both ammendments were introduced by the same people. The ploy being that if you really want to guard against SOB's; having Airstream in the name will exclude other brands by default.

Ed

[JimGolden]

I bet my '89 T-Bird Super Coupe is faster than your '56. Wanna race

This whole issue is tough. When I toured Jackson Center last year, the gent taking us on the tour told us they're not building any more motorhomes because they just couldn't sell them. He said the trailers are selling pretty well, but the motorhomes just sat on the lots.

The motorhomes did look nice, but they looked like all the other freightliner chassis fiberglass square ones out there. Which is not to say they look bad at all; they looked incredibly sharp. But they didn't look like a vintage airstream.

Has Thor/AS done any market research to see if there'd be an interest in bringing back the "classic" looking motorhomes? Maybe I'm over simplifying here, but why couldn't they take a 34' shell and put a nose plug on it and have a new super touring motohome that looks like the vintage trailers? I would think they'd appeal to the Hollywood set if nothing else.

How about a "Friends of the WBCCI" organization that would be separate, but allowed to attend the functions? The boxy motorhomes could be in that.

I'm watching this whole thing with interest. Trying to decide if I want to join the WBCCI or not. Personally I like the vintage rigs the best. But isn't the Vintage Airstream Club a subset of the WBCCI, so that you have to pay more money on top of the WBCCI membership to be in the VAC?

How about a VAC only organization that is outside of WBCCI altogether? There, by definition, you would have to have a travel trailer (no motorhomes at all) that is at least 25 years old. I would think Argosy's would be OK. But that'd be it: Old Airstream and Argosy travel trailers only.

Just an idea...

[rickandsandi]

As noted above, if you want to belong to an exclusive Airstream organization you would join WBCCI. That was they way it always was and should continue. Isn't it interesting that the individuals who are now apparently pushing to allow non-Airstream products into our organization, are the same who not that many years ago started a campaign to stop MoHo made by AS into the organization, in addition fought to keep out Argosys?

[mistral blue]

Originally Posted by Buzzy4

Could it be that this non-Airstream SOB motorhome thing is a diversionary tactic in the name change war?

After all, both ammendments were introduced by the same people. The ploy being that if you really want to guard against SOB's; having Airstream in the name will exclude other brands by default.

Ed

Interesting stategic thinking Ed. I hope you're wrong. It's a conspiracy theory that, even if true, would be impossible to prove without some direct and compelling evidence. Most likely from a conspirator. Not a likely scenario here.

For the record, I will be voting against the IBT's proposed amendment to our Constitution. Clearly, for two years in a row, the IBT has come up with incredibly shortsighted, divisive and ill-advised proposals. I believe they have lost whatever "vision" they had and should be held accountable for their actions. I am, however, taking this year's proposed amendment at face value. I don't need any more incentive to vote against it. It's a terrible idea IMHO. All by itself.

[Minnie's Mate]

Originally Posted by JimGolden

Has Thor/AS done any market research to see if there'd be an interest in bringing back the "classic" looking motorhomes? Maybe I'm over simplifying here, but why couldn't they take a 34' shell and put a nose plug on it and have a new super touring motohome that looks like the vintage trailers? I would think they'd appeal to the Hollywood set if nothing else.

While Airstream is a division of Thor Industries, it is allowed to operate pretty much autonomously. It isn't Thor's normal process to be involved in making Airstream decisions on a daily basis.

A few years ago Airstream did exactly what you have pondered. They went so far as to have the technology for a fancy aluminum vacuum forming process developed for the intricate parts and, IIRC, may have even built a new facility or renovated an existing one or something to be dedicated to the "New Classic" motorhome. The new Classic Motor Home was very sharp. The mock-ups showed that it wasn't a re-introduction of the original, but it was a reinvention of the original. This wasn't too long after the new Class A was introduced. But less than a year before going into production Airstream pulled the plug on the whole project and said it was still on the drawing boards if they decided to green light the project at some time in the future.

One scenario said this new vacuum forming process proved to be too expensive. Another said the whole concept was too expensive. Another said there wasn't enough market for an all aluminum bodied Class A. Another said the building that would have housed the new Classic line was damaged/distroyed in a fire. Yet another said the new Classic would have been too expensive to find a market and the most believable one, IMHO, said that Airstream came to the conclusion that they wanted out of the motor home market altogether. Which is the most accurate? I haven't a clue.

[JimGolden]

That's really too sad about the new classic motorhomes. I bet they would have been really nice.

I know Jackson Center did have a fire some time ago. I'd called out there to get some information (I don't recall what) on my '77 and they said the records had been lost in a fire.


To keep prices reasonable, though, why couldn't they just mate a travel trailer's upper shell onto a motorhome chassis. Then just develop a new front end. They could build the shells on the same bucks they do the trailers on.

The truth, sadly, is that there probably isn't enough market out there to justify building them. They would have to cost a lot more than the trailers, which already cost a lot. And anyone other than a hard core airstream addict would probably rationalize that a SOB Class A is more bang for the buck. Honestly, I've seen some really nice Class A's. Not just Prevosts, but I've seen some superb looking units for "only" $180K

Of course I paid "only" $2.5K for my rig After I put $10K more in it, I'll have what I think is swank for my uses...

[wheel interested]

I would think that Airstream and it's workers and production department must have been very disappoiinted not to have been able to go forward with the anniversary year's cool new reinvented motorhome as planned. I believe it was mentioned by Larry Huttle at the IBT Rally, that in the space that was to be the housing for the new motorhome division, a complex of Thor Corporate offices will be erected instead.

I don't know, would Thor see a much better bottom line selling Class As to the WBCCI then spending money to get money back on Airstream motorhomes when they already have many different motorhome facilities at their disposal? Does Thor care about the pride of Airstream workmanship and design or did they just scoop up an iconic rv manufacturer and apply pressure to compete with numbers of its other lines?

[tincantom]

Airstream thought they could sell 5th wheels because it was a hot mareket at the time. Then a few years later they thought the same thing about the big MH market. I'm not sure they had that much problem with the classic MHs. IMHO basically the Airstream owners (I read somewere that 70% of their overall sales were to WBCCI members?) didn't want to buy 5th wheels and for the most part the big boxes (possibly a lot due to the prices) and the non WBCCI people, not being brand loyal, found much better bargains with other brands.
tom

[tincantom]

Sorry folks. I guess I lost track of where I was way off topic here
Appologies,
tom

[65GT]

It's a shame isn't it? Even our own club leaders don't want those last dozen plus AS MH's. They're already out shopping Four Winds and Mandalay. Apparently they're a lot less money and every bit as good in quality.

Did I hear that already somewhere? I'm sure it wasn't from a loyal WBCCI member and AS enthusiast...

__

[wheel interested]

Were you Tom? I didn't think so. I think we are all trying to guess just what motivated the WBCCI leaders into introducing the motion to allow other brand motorhomes into the club. I think anything that could possibly shed some light on just how we got to the point where we are today is topical.

It is so peculiar to so many. The motorhome owners would not be forced to leave, if 800 members already own Airstream motorhomes, why do they need non-Airstream motorhomes the year Airstream stops making them? Why would letting Thor products into the club be a membership boon? Perhaps we are stunned and trying to work through this but also thinking it is time to defend our club. I'm not off topic am I? This is the place where we came to post about the WBCCI the club that is and has been for over 50 years an Airstream only club, right?

[bfred]

As an owner of a 2003 land yacht 396XL, I never got a survey and you all know by now, I am totally opposed to the amendment to allow SOB's in the WBCCI. I also stated before, that if all MH's were banned from the WBCCI, I would miss all the friends we have made, but would understand.
The Airstream name is synonymous with the trailers and most motorhomes are just an afterthought, but we have a great club open to us that trailer owners do not. The IBT I feel are dedicated, but too many ex-military or retired school personel who are used to giving out orders without much rebuttal.