will this fly?

[Lee Elson]

Please excuse the cross post, but the topic might be of interest to
several groups.

I'm wondering whether providing light aircraft transportation services
(people and/or cargo) and consulting to small businesses is likely to
be a successful approach to setting up a very small aviation business.
In particular, are there commercial pilots who provide short range (<
600 nm) single (piston) engine airplane-based transportation to
employees or owners of small businesses? It seems that if the small
business "supplies" the airplane, either through rental or part
ownership, the FAA considers the activity to be governed by part 91 of
the FAR's. I'm aware of the (large) fractional ownership companies
but I'm thinking much smaller in cost and number or clients. I'm also
aware of the (new) subpart of FAR 91 which governs fractional
activities. It appears possible to easily "opt out" of these
restrictions.

I suspect (but have no evidence) that there are many small companies
that could use such transportation services and would find it cost
effective compared to traveling by car. If you know of an example
where someone has made a business meeting these types of
transportation needs, I'd appreciate hearing about the details (e.g.
who are the customers, what are the costs).

email replies preferred

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (Lee Elson) said:
>I suspect (but have no evidence) that there are many small companies
>that could use such transportation services and would find it cost
>effective compared to traveling by car. If you know of an example
>where someone has made a business meeting these types of
>transportation needs, I'd appreciate hearing about the details (e.g.
>who are the customers, what are the costs).

5 will get you 10 that the FAA would consider what you are referring to as
"air taxi", and therefore Part 135.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
It's fun to mock old people. They're going to die soon anyway.
-- Mike Sphar

[Ron Natalie]

"Lee Elson" > wrote in message om...

> I suspect (but have no evidence) that there are many small companies
> that could use such transportation services and would find it cost
> effective compared to traveling by car. If you know of an example
> where someone has made a business meeting these types of
> transportation needs, I'd appreciate hearing about the details (e.g.
> who are the customers, what are the costs).

There are such companies out there, but you have to be very careful
as you are walking a fine line with the 135-91 issues. Try reading
AC 120-12A first.

[David Megginson]

Lee Elson wrote:

> I'm wondering whether providing light aircraft transportation services
> (people and/or cargo) and consulting to small businesses is likely to
> be a successful approach to setting up a very small aviation business.

I am not even American, much less an expert in the FARs, so I won't comment
on that part of your posting. On the business side, however, you need to be
careful. Do you really know much about the aviation business? How are the
existing businesses within 250 nm doing? What *are* the existing businesses
within 250 nm?

If I ever felt compelled to do something like open a restaurant or start an
aviation business, I'd force myself to spend at least three years working in
the industry first so that I could get at least a clue about how the
business works: wait tables, wash airplanes, or whatever. I'd also hire a
manager who hated restaurants or airplanes, so that I'd have someone who
could make impartial cost/benefit decisions without being blinded by the
glamour of the whole thing.

Once I'd done that, I would set aside a fixed amount of money (say, USD
400K), with the understanding that

a) I won't give up on the business until the money runs out; and
b) I won't put any more money into the business if the money does run out.

Obviously, you will need enough money to make it through at least a couple
of bad years. If you (or your investors) cannot afford to lose that money,
then don't start the business.


All the best,


David

[Colin Kingsbury]

Lee,

I'm a pilot/owner and heavy business traveler located in Boston, so I have
some perspective on this...

I think the concept of a small-plane fractional system a la NetJets could
have some potential in specific markets.

I travel >100k/mi year and over the past few years the airlines have really
trimmed back connections to secondary markets. If you're based in Albany and
have to visit a client in Bangor, then you're screwed. No way you can drive
out and back in one day, and even flying the airlines is tough because
you'll have to connect in Boston- better hope you can synch schedules well.

Now, with an SR-22, that becomes an easy one-day trip. This gets the
businessman back home, relaxed, not spending a night in some fleabag motel
in a dingy town (nothing against Bangor). It will however cost a lot more
than a car trip would. Also, the reason why there isn't better airline
service between Albany and Bangor is that there aren't that many people
doing it. That should sound a cautionary note.

Of course, there's a lot of flights that will get scrubbed in an SR-22
because of icing, so this isn't a good plane for you. Remember, the key
value you provide is time savings, so you darn well better not scrub too
many flights. So now you're in it for a FIKI bird, probably a decent-sized
twin so the pax don't get nervous. You like flying in small planes, but your
customers often won't. Now, a 421 would be great, but that's going to cost a
lot more per hour to run than the Cirrus, which means your "tickets" will be
more expensive, which means a lot fewer people will buy them. This is one
reason why these sorts of things aren't more prevalent. It's also why the
Safire/Eclipse/etc microjets are a potential "big deal." If they can offer
turbine reliability and mission flexibility at low operating cost, I am
absolutely certain you will see air taxi services sprouting up like
mushrooms on manure after a rainstorm. However, many aviation veterans far
more knowledgeable than I do not believe this is currently possible. I have
no skin in the game so I have adopted a "wait and see" attitude.

Come to think of it, the ideal plane for this would probably be something
like a Caravan, which will have good operating flexibility but lower costs,
especially insurance and maintenance, and fewer mechanical failures. Of
course, if you're in the Rockies this might not work, you might need a
pressurized plane.

All BS aside, the real issue here is, which is more solid, your dream or
your business? I'll bet somebody could build a business like this and make
it work. But they'll be doing most of their flying wearing green eyeshades
sitting behind a desk. If you want to fly, and nothing else, get a flying
job. They're out there and you will find one eventually, and you'll get to
do a lot more flying. If you want to build a business, OTOH, my advice
(following what an earlier poster said) would be to find your model (like
NetJets) and go work for them and learn everything you can, then rip it off.

Best,
-cwk.

[Mike Rapoport]

Lots of good advice but I would say that if you have better not scrub any
flights (or almost none). When people are paying a huge premium to save
time they expect to get to their desinatin on time. It is a chicken and egg
problem: The only people who will pay need to get to the destination on
time every time. The only people who can be flexible on schedule won't pay
a premium.

Mike
MU-2


"Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Lee,
>
> I'm a pilot/owner and heavy business traveler located in Boston, so I have
> some perspective on this...
>
> I think the concept of a small-plane fractional system a la NetJets could
> have some potential in specific markets.
>
> I travel >100k/mi year and over the past few years the airlines have
really
> trimmed back connections to secondary markets. If you're based in Albany
and
> have to visit a client in Bangor, then you're screwed. No way you can
drive
> out and back in one day, and even flying the airlines is tough because
> you'll have to connect in Boston- better hope you can synch schedules
well.
>
> Now, with an SR-22, that becomes an easy one-day trip. This gets the
> businessman back home, relaxed, not spending a night in some fleabag motel
> in a dingy town (nothing against Bangor). It will however cost a lot more
> than a car trip would. Also, the reason why there isn't better airline
> service between Albany and Bangor is that there aren't that many people
> doing it. That should sound a cautionary note.
>
> Of course, there's a lot of flights that will get scrubbed in an SR-22
> because of icing, so this isn't a good plane for you. Remember, the key
> value you provide is time savings, so you darn well better not scrub too
> many flights. So now you're in it for a FIKI bird, probably a decent-sized
> twin so the pax don't get nervous. You like flying in small planes, but
your
> customers often won't. Now, a 421 would be great, but that's going to cost
a
> lot more per hour to run than the Cirrus, which means your "tickets" will
be
> more expensive, which means a lot fewer people will buy them. This is one
> reason why these sorts of things aren't more prevalent. It's also why the
> Safire/Eclipse/etc microjets are a potential "big deal." If they can offer
> turbine reliability and mission flexibility at low operating cost, I am
> absolutely certain you will see air taxi services sprouting up like
> mushrooms on manure after a rainstorm. However, many aviation veterans far
> more knowledgeable than I do not believe this is currently possible. I
have
> no skin in the game so I have adopted a "wait and see" attitude.
>
> Come to think of it, the ideal plane for this would probably be something
> like a Caravan, which will have good operating flexibility but lower
costs,
> especially insurance and maintenance, and fewer mechanical failures. Of
> course, if you're in the Rockies this might not work, you might need a
> pressurized plane.
>
> All BS aside, the real issue here is, which is more solid, your dream or
> your business? I'll bet somebody could build a business like this and make
> it work. But they'll be doing most of their flying wearing green eyeshades
> sitting behind a desk. If you want to fly, and nothing else, get a flying
> job. They're out there and you will find one eventually, and you'll get to
> do a lot more flying. If you want to build a business, OTOH, my advice
> (following what an earlier poster said) would be to find your model (like
> NetJets) and go work for them and learn everything you can, then rip it
off.
>
> Best,
> -cwk.
>
>

[Kevin]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Lots of good advice but I would say that if you have better not scrub any
> flights (or almost none). When people are paying a huge premium to save
> time they expect to get to their desinatin on time. It is a chicken and egg
> problem: The only people who will pay need to get to the destination on
> time every time. The only people who can be flexible on schedule won't pay
> a premium.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> This is how these guys get into trouble when they have to be somewhere come hell or high water.
Last night near Newnan GA. 2 charter pilots were killed in a King Air
200 when they
tried to slip beneath the overcast to land.They got too low started
clipping trees and crashed. The conditions at the time were 100
ft.overcast with 1/4 mile vis.

[[email protected]]

On 5-Dec-2003, (Lee Elson) wrote:

> I'm wondering whether providing light aircraft transportation services
> (people and/or cargo) and consulting to small businesses is likely to
> be a successful approach to setting up a very small aviation business.
> In particular, are there commercial pilots who provide short range (<
> 600 nm) single (piston) engine airplane-based transportation to
> employees or owners of small businesses? It seems that if the small
> business "supplies" the airplane, either through rental or part
> ownership, the FAA considers the activity to be governed by part 91 of
> the FAR's.


Sounds like what you are suggesting is a sort of on-demand professional
pilot service where the client owns the aircraft (or fraction thereof) and
brings in the pilot from the service you envision to fly it. Thus the plane
can be operated under part 91 as a privately owned aircraft. The advantage
to the company is that, rather than maintaining a staff of pilots on payroll
they just pay for pilot services as required, kind of like getting office
workers from a temp agency. Obviously, the pilots would have to have
commercial tickets and any required type-ratings

Legally, I don't see why this can't work. No different really than hiring
an instructor to teach you in your own airplane. From a practical business
standpoint? Who knows?

--
-Elliott Drucker

[ET]

"Colin Kingsbury" > wrote in news:XW4Ab.542
:

>
> Of course, there's a lot of flights that will get scrubbed in an SR-22
> because of icing, so this isn't a good plane for you.

My father owns SR-22, it has an anti-icing system (sprays solution out from
micro holes in the wings/prop/etc)... I am not yet a pilot, so I'm certain
I don't understand all the complexities of this, but would an SR-22 with
this system still be as limited as your statement suggests??

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[McGregor]

Well, someone else with this idea just folded.

http://www.morrowaircraft.com/




"Lee Elson" > wrote in message
om...
> Please excuse the cross post, but the topic might be of interest to
> several groups.
>
> I'm wondering whether providing light aircraft transportation services
> (people and/or cargo) and consulting to small businesses is likely to
> be a successful approach to setting up a very small aviation business.
> In particular, are there commercial pilots who provide short range (<
> 600 nm) single (piston) engine airplane-based transportation to
> employees or owners of small businesses? It seems that if the small
> business "supplies" the airplane, either through rental or part
> ownership, the FAA considers the activity to be governed by part 91 of
> the FAR's. I'm aware of the (large) fractional ownership companies
> but I'm thinking much smaller in cost and number or clients. I'm also
> aware of the (new) subpart of FAR 91 which governs fractional
> activities. It appears possible to easily "opt out" of these
> restrictions.
>
> I suspect (but have no evidence) that there are many small companies
> that could use such transportation services and would find it cost
> effective compared to traveling by car. If you know of an example
> where someone has made a business meeting these types of
> transportation needs, I'd appreciate hearing about the details (e.g.
> who are the customers, what are the costs).
>
> email replies preferred
>

[Rob Perkins]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:11:16 GMT, "McGregor"
> wrote:

>Well, someone else with this idea just folded.
>
>http://www.morrowaircraft.com/

Little evidence of that on the web site you cite. Got any more info?

Rob

[Peter Duniho]

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> >Well, someone else with this idea just folded.
> >
> >http://www.morrowaircraft.com/
>
> Little evidence of that on the web site you cite. Got any more info?

From AvWeb's AvFlash:

AIR TAXI COMPANY SHUTS DOWN...
Financial problems have grounded SkyTaxi Inc, an Oregon start-up that
received national exposure for its hybrid air service. SkyTaxi, whose
business blended elements of regular airline service and charter
service, vacated its maintenance hangar at the Salem airport and laid
off employees last month.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/bizav/172-full.html#186236