On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 06:51:57 -0400, Kyle Boatright wrote:

The bottom line is that FBO's and Flight schools need to work very hard to
create new private pilots to trickle up to Commercial, IFR, Multi, etc.
ratings (and aircraft) or we'll wake up one day and aviation as we know it
will be gone.

The problem with this reasoning is that the FBO has little control over
its stream of new/upgrading pilots. The case cited of an FBO that
[effectively] ditched flight training, for example, may be more savvy than
you think. If I were an FBO owner, I'd know what percentage of renters
were from my flight school, what percentage of graduates I lost, and what
percentage of renters were trained elsewhere.

If I found that my stream of students wasn't helping my rental business, I
could easily see myself ditching training (or at least not losing money on
it) for the obvious business reason.

For example, I did my PPL at an FBO where I rarely rented afterward. I
shifted to an FBO with better gear (and then joined a member-owned club).
On the other hand, I did my IR with that second FBO (the one with the
nicer gear). Even though I don't rent there now, I still recommend them
for both training and rental.

Another factor is MX. It may be cheaper to rent a long-suffering 152, but
that aircraft may cost more in MX than something newer and more expensive
to rent. Where should the FBO allocate its dollars?

That second FBO I mentioned, for example, ditched its older 172s (in favor
of SPs, a DA-40 or two, etc.). I wondered how this would do for them;
they do seem to be flying their aircraft with some regularity.

I guess my point is that there are a lot of variables, and - from outside
- its hard to judge exactly how factors balance out. But [cheap] flight
training may not be the income generator we'd all hope.

- Andrew