BPA-CAA DODGY DEALS

After receiving a letter from the Parachute Training Organisation Association's legal counsel, the British Parachute Association's governing Council held a meeting on 9.3.2021. One BPA Council member, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, told BPA Watch: "We do indeed seem to be breach of The Monopolies Act and insurance laws as suggested by the PTO Association's lawyers.".  

The BPA insurance scam was reported by BPA Watch. The letter also mentioned the Civil Aviation Authority and the CAA-BPA CAP 660. The last revision of CAP 660 failed to address the document's lack of Health and Safety compliance but went further than any previous edition in advancing and consolidating the illegal BPA monopoly.

 It was agreed to keep the PTOA letter secret although disgruntled BPA councillors spilled the beans after the firm's highly paid COO Tony Butler signaled his intention to fight any PTOA lawsuit all the way to the highest court in the land––with BPA money. And the BPA trading as British Skydiving has plenty of money to fund Butler's Viking funeral.

As anyone familiar with how the BPA operates knows, the BPA Council doesn't actually have any directorial power. The BPA has been run for years by a small cabal of ghost directors over which Tony Butler presides. Mr Butler holds the title of Chief Operations Officer of the BPA but, as readers of our blog will know, has never been a registered director of BPA Ltd, trading since December 2020 as British Skydiving. However, Mr Butler is one of the two registered directors of another limited company called British Skydiving Ltd,

British Skydiving Ltd is registered as the same address as British Parachute Association Ltd. Some BPA Council members and insiders are concerned that Butler will hollow out BPA Ltd by transferring its funds and holdings to the new firm. BPA Ltd is sitting on a £3 million-plus fund amassed over the years because, some allege, of CAA undercharging. In other words, the BPA trading as British Skydiving has grown rich at British taxpayers' expense with the help of the CAA quango. The CAA has also delegated regulatory oversight to the BPA/BS organisation, thus transforming the shady firm into a quango, which strikes many observers as an abuse of CAA powers. Only ministers of state can create quangos.

One concerned BPA Council member, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid reprisals, told BPA Watch: "The longtime Council members who are part of Butler's cabal are adamant that a no-compromise, zero tolerance approach to the PTOA 'rebellion' is to be adopted, even if it means the matter being dragged through the courts at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds or even more. Others are worried that their responsibility as BPA Ltd directors, past or present, could be engaged by the authorities who will not accept that they had no power to curtail the various illegal activities and behaviour of Butler and his cronies over the years.". 

CAA CEO Richard Moriarty: backhanders?

The PTOA lawyers' letter was not unexpected. The BPA propaganda machine run by BPA Treasurer Natasha Higman had utilised social media, the BPA's print journal Skydive Magazine and the BPA Annual Report and AGM to put the most positive spin possible on the issues raised by the PTOA's legal counsel –– and by this blog. Addressed to British Skydiving, the trading name now used by BPA Ltd, the PTOA letter contends that BPA Ltd are in breach of The Competitions Act 1998 concerning Anti-Competitive Agreements Abuse of a Dominant Market Position. That dominant market position has been facilitated by the CAA or by corrupt CAA officials whom some allege accept cash bribes from Tony Butler, who is authorised to draw up to £10,000 at any one time from BPA bank accounts without having to account for the money. CAA directors and officials have been observed at BPA/BS-run events accepting various kinds of corporate hospitality. There is no proof that any of them have accepted bribes, leaving observers to wonder why the CAA or certain CAA officials promote and protect the BPA monopoly with such dogged tenacity. Is there something more sinister involved?

CAA Official George Duncan: Butler's poodle?

As this blog previously reported, BPA Ltd forces its affliliated PTOs (and its membership) to purchase insurance policies that are overpriced, fail to provide the requisite cover and are in any case totally unnecessary. Tandem parachuting customers or 'students' are forced to buy BPA 3rd Party cover for £11 per jump, which is incorporated into the fees they pay their PTO of choice. However, these 'students' should be covered by their instructors' insurance. Some estimates suggest that this practice generates approximately £600k per annum for the BPA. Other sources amongst PTO operators claim the figure is far higher. 

In essence, BPA Ltd is acting as an insurance broker but forcing its affiliated PTOs to levy these insurance fees on their customers is likely to highly illegal. As one PTO owner said: "Any claim by one of our customers would obviously be against the instructor's personal insurance or the PTO as the employer of the instructor. Although it is a legal requirement, the BPA continually refuse to provide members and PTOs with a full and detailed copy of the insurance policy which they are forced to purchase.". This blog has already explored the topic of BPA insurance.

One of the PTO owners behind the lawyers' letter to the BPA said: "Every time I put a skydiver on a plane, I am losing £7, and that is just against the aircraft operating costs. This approach where the whole industry is subsidised by tandem students is totally unsustainable. Jump ticket costs will need to be more realistic moving forward. People have their life savings invested in these businesses and the only person getting rich is the BPA COO Tony Butler who is paid £120,000 plus benefits.  I for one can't afford to drive around in a Bentley like Butler, or anything like it. There is something fundamentally wrong here!".

The BPA has recently publicised its new Exposition with the CAA. As with the previous BPA-CAA Exposition, however, this new agreement remains secret. BPA and CAA officials will not even reveal who signed it for their respective organisations. In the past, CAA officials like CEO Richard Moriarty and Oversight Manager Jim Frampton have sidestepped questions about the regulatory powers given to the BPA by the CAA through these Expositions. One BPA insider, who expressed concern about company directors' responsibility for illegal practices by the BPA, said: "Apart from the dubious insurance-related activities that have upset the PTOs, the BPA is establishing and maintaining an illegal monopoly over parachuting in the United Kingdom. The revisions to CAP 660 in 2019 brought this monopoly closer to being total. 

The owner of one of the twenty-one BPA-affiliated PTOs preparing to take the BPA to court said: "The CAA charges the BPA around £30,000 a year for CAA-approved status, which amounts to the sale by the CAA to the BPA or British Skydiving of a monopoly. There is amply evidence suggesting that the BPA, aided and abetted by the CAA or a couple of its executive directors, has been weaponising charges related to parachuting permissions to prevent any potential rivals entering the market and to force everyone to work under the BPA and CAP 660. 

"If Butler and his cronies force this matter into court to protect their personal interests, disclosure rules will see the extent of any dubious BPA-CAA collusion publicly exposed. As our legal counsel remarked, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission charged the CAA with preventing legal monopolies like NATS [National Air Traffic Service] from abusing their position. This situation with the BPA is not the first time the CAA has been accused of facilitating an illegal monopoly. 

Coining it: Tony Butler

"The CAA was embroiled in the British Airways versus Virgin row and was heavily criticised.  Then there was the breakup of the BAA monopoly after government intervention in the face of the CAA failure to meet its obligations. The House of Lords Inquiry into the CAA in 2013 found that the CAA had been 'captured by a monopoly'.' And then there are the numerous lawsuits against the CAA for malpractice and abuse of power.".

There is a growing awareness amongst BPA members and associates of what has been going on over many years. As one concerned BPA Council member remarked: "The light bulbs are starting to come on.". A former BPA Ltd director said: "There is an unhealthy relationship between the BPA and the CAA and at its heart are suspiciously close ties between CAA Chief Executive Richard Moriarty and BPA COO Tony Butler, who is actually in charge of the BPA and has been so for a long time. While this does not necessarily mean that there is criminality involved, it does suggest dodgy deals behind closed doors, like this new Exposition that is not being shown to BPA directors and councillors who are not part of the ghost directorate Tony Butler rules over. We're wondering if this new Exposition even mentions BPA Ltd or if it is beween British Skydiving Ltd and the CAA.". 

BPA Watch has asked the BPA's two independent Council members responsible for overseeing BPA Ltd's adherence to corporate governance rules to comment but has to date received no response. Perhaps this new Exposition is not, as alleged, between BPA Ltd and the CAA but British Skydiving Ltd and the CAA. If so, this would indicate that CAA officials are even more complicit in BPA/BS malfeasance than previously suspected.