How to promote this thing we do (long post)

I'm a 10 year lurker in this newsgroup and, like most, time gets in the way
of my flying and/or posting here. But after a week at OSH (missed the party
AGAIN, but this time, I didn't wander around not finding it ) and a newly
re-instated medical, I've been invigorated and am ready again to do this
thing we love.

....But I'm concerned. As many have pointed out, the number of pilots in our
country is falling rapidly. My father and I flew into a monthly breakfast
at a nearby airport about a month ago. At 37 years old, I was one of the
youngest 10% of attendees. Most of the people there were 50-65 and the
remainder even older.

As I wandered around OSH, I made an effort to try to average out the ages of
most of the people there. You had your kids and early teenagers that came
with Mom and Dad and occasionally a 20 yr old. But then there seemed to be
a gap and again, the 35-40 yr olds started the pack again and it went up
from there.

Now, being 37, I know exactly why this is the case. I had the same problems.
Family, career, kids, etc all get "in the way" and flying doesn't make it in
the top ten list of things to spend a limited budget on. But I think what
we're starting to see happening is that flying isn't making it BACK into the
budget once money and time become more available. Things like Harley
Davidson motorcycles, RV's, etc all seem more plausible to the masses than
flying....because we all know flying is a rich man's hobby...right? (said in
jest...sorta).

So, why am I rambling on about the obvious? Here's why. I think groups
like EAA and AOPA need to come back to reality. The Poberezny's and Phil
Boyer have been rubbing elbows with the celebrities and the ultra rich (e.g
Warbird owners) so long, they've forgotten that I had to borrow money to buy
a $29k C172 and get bitched at everytime I have to pay for an annual.

I saved up my sweepstakes tickets from Sport Pilot and entered 30 of them
for the pretty new $190,000 Husky that the EAA was giving away. But, had I
won it, I would have had to sell it to pay the $50k+ tax bill. Now, I would
loved to have won and sold it to buy something I could afford, but the point
is, they are trying to get "the average man" back into flying. Call me
crazy, but the "average man" doesn't spend $190k on an airplane.

I have probably 15 friends around my age that have told me that they "have
always wanted to fly, but just haven't because XXXX" XXXX might be money,
time, fear, whatever. But money is usually the culprit. And most of them
have no real idea what it would cost. They just write it off as something
they can't afford.

Again, what is my point? I dunno. I guess, I'm asking how do we do this?
How do we get the 40 year old's who always wanted to fly, but just never had
time, money or gumption? We tend to really push hard on the young. We have
great programs like Young Eagles to encourage kids to get into aviation, but
now 15 years after that program was started, how many PPL's has it
generated? I'm not suggesting we stop YE, but I am trying to figure out if
that is enough. Obviously, it's not. Would it be possible to have EAA/AOPA
to give away "scholarships" to adults to get their license? If you granted
them $10k each, the EAA could have given away 19 PPL Scholarships for the
money the Husky cost. I know that a $5k donation to my license fund would
have made me get in the air 10 years ago. I would think you could get
vendors and aviation suppliers to donate to the cause just like they do to
the giveaway aircraft. More pilots = More business.

I'm just trying to start a conversation here. I'm excited personally about
my re-instated medical and getting back in the air, but at the same time,
I'm concerned that status quo isn't gonna cut it anymore.

Thoughts?

Jeff Franks
Summertown, TN

"Jeff" jfranks1971 minus wrote in message
...
I'm a 10 year lurker in this newsgroup and, like most, time gets in the
way of my flying and/or posting here. But after a week at OSH (missed the
party AGAIN, but this time, I didn't wander around not finding it ) and
a newly re-instated medical, I've been invigorated and am ready again to
do this thing we love.

...But I'm concerned. As many have pointed out, the number of pilots in
our country is falling rapidly. My father and I flew into a monthly
breakfast at a nearby airport about a month ago. At 37 years old, I was
one of the youngest 10% of attendees. Most of the people there were 50-65
and the remainder even older.

As I wandered around OSH, I made an effort to try to average out the ages
of most of the people there. You had your kids and early teenagers that
came with Mom and Dad and occasionally a 20 yr old. But then there seemed
to be a gap and again, the 35-40 yr olds started the pack again and it
went up from there.

Now, being 37, I know exactly why this is the case. I had the same
problems. Family, career, kids, etc all get "in the way" and flying
doesn't make it in the top ten list of things to spend a limited budget
on. But I think what we're starting to see happening is that flying isn't
making it BACK into the budget once money and time become more available.
Things like Harley Davidson motorcycles, RV's, etc all seem more plausible
to the masses than flying....because we all know flying is a rich man's
hobby...right? (said in jest...sorta).

So, why am I rambling on about the obvious? Here's why. I think groups
like EAA and AOPA need to come back to reality. The Poberezny's and Phil
Boyer have been rubbing elbows with the celebrities and the ultra rich
(e.g Warbird owners) so long, they've forgotten that I had to borrow money
to buy a $29k C172 and get bitched at everytime I have to pay for an
annual.

I saved up my sweepstakes tickets from Sport Pilot and entered 30 of them
for the pretty new $190,000 Husky that the EAA was giving away. But, had
I won it, I would have had to sell it to pay the $50k+ tax bill. Now, I
would loved to have won and sold it to buy something I could afford, but
the point is, they are trying to get "the average man" back into flying.
Call me crazy, but the "average man" doesn't spend $190k on an airplane.

I have probably 15 friends around my age that have told me that they "have
always wanted to fly, but just haven't because XXXX" XXXX might be
money, time, fear, whatever. But money is usually the culprit. And most
of them have no real idea what it would cost. They just write it off as
something they can't afford.

Again, what is my point? I dunno. I guess, I'm asking how do we do this?
How do we get the 40 year old's who always wanted to fly, but just never
had time, money or gumption? We tend to really push hard on the young.
We have great programs like Young Eagles to encourage kids to get into
aviation, but now 15 years after that program was started, how many PPL's
has it generated? I'm not suggesting we stop YE, but I am trying to
figure out if that is enough. Obviously, it's not. Would it be possible
to have EAA/AOPA to give away "scholarships" to adults to get their
license? If you granted them $10k each, the EAA could have given away 19
PPL Scholarships for the money the Husky cost. I know that a $5k donation
to my license fund would have made me get in the air 10 years ago. I
would think you could get vendors and aviation suppliers to donate to the
cause just like they do to the giveaway aircraft. More pilots = More
business.

I'm just trying to start a conversation here. I'm excited personally
about my re-instated medical and getting back in the air, but at the same
time, I'm concerned that status quo isn't gonna cut it anymore.

Thoughts?

Jeff Franks
Summertown, TN

The most important thing (IMO) is that flight schools need to use primary
flight instruction as a "loss leader", cut the cost to the bare bones, and
hopefully bring more people into flying. My local FBO doubled its
instructor rates a few years ago at the same time they sold all the C-152's
and replaced all of 'em with C-172's. The cost/hr for primary flight
instruction went from about $60/hr to about $110/hr in their doggiest C-172.
That alone probably added $2,000 to the cost of getting a private ticket.

And the result is that they do very little flight training for people
wanting a private ticket and are creating virtually no new pilots. In a few
years, the FBO will be asking itself "why isn't anyone renting our C-172's
and Arrow anymore?" The answer... Because all the old guys who were renting
'em are gone and there is nobody to take their place.

On the other hand, there is a guy at my field who is busy virtually every
day teaching LSA and Ultralight lessons. I bet he has taught more people to
fly in the last year than the FBO has in the last 3 years.

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.

KB

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

On a typical sunny sunday afternoon, the FBO at my airport may schedule as
many as 4 90-120 minute lessons back to back in a 172. They will bill 4-6
hours of time for the day, plus they get a "vig" on the instructor's bill.

On the other hand, if I rent the plane for a day trip, I may only fly it 2
hours. If I take the plane overnight, I may further reduce their billings.
When I used to rent at that particular FBO, I used to get a hard time about
renting overnight, and in one instance was instructed to request permission
from the leaseback holder. They didn't want my paltry 4 hours when they could
get 12 elsewhere.

I believe the FBOs want students more then renters. The key incentive for
them to "create new private pilots to trickle up to Commercial, IFR, Multi,
etc." is to hire them or train them or both. If they go fly for American or
United it doesn't really do the FBO any good...

I too belong to a flight club. It's been a great experience, and it has kept
my aviation costs in check. My annual aviation costs have gone up, but not
nearly as much as the FBO's. This particular club has Archers, Arrows, and
Bonanzas, so over time I have built up the necessary experience and training
to fly the whole gamut. I pay about the same hourly price for a Bo that
cruises 170kts as I would for a 172 at the FBO. But I can go almost twice as
far in that time, and I can take my whole family in the plane with full
tanks. I can take the plane for multi-day trips even if I only fly an hour
away, and if I want to go somewhere, even at the last minute, there's almost
always a plane available (although not always a Bo). Summer weekends are a
little bit busy, but the club has instituted rules to prevent abuse and help
ensure availability.

For renters, I think it's the perfect scenario. We've had some members buy
their own planes or partner on a plane and leave the club, but to be honest,
I think they're crazy. If their plane goes in for service, they're SOL. If
one of the club planes goes in for service, there are several others to
choose from...

Anyway, I think to answer Jeff's original question - clubs are the way to go
to keep this industry alive. Every club is a little bit different, but there
are many flight clubs out there. And if there isn't one near you, find a
couple of owners and start one! One of the members of our club did that when
he moved to the next state.

Clubs. It's the next plastics.

The only other way to save this industry (and maybe this country) is to kill
all the lawyers and insurance companies.



Andrew Gideon wrote in
news
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

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:03:18 +0000, Judah wrote:

[...]


I believe the FBOs want students more then renters.

You raise some excellent points about which I'd forgotten. Every FBO from
which I rented had some type of "daily minimum" for this reason.

On the other hand, at least once I'd a plane rented out from under me by
someone planning a long trip. It was the one 172SP at that FBO at the
time, and it was for my IR checkride. So rather than having a plane with
GPS and without ADF, I'd a plane without GPS and with ADF. Unpleasant!

[Fortunately, I'd a thorough CFII that had made me learn real NDP
approaches anyway. I did pass.]

The big difference, I'd guess, is that the long trip included a lot of
weekdays during which there's less student activity.

The key incentive for
them to "create new private pilots to trickle up to Commercial, IFR,
Multi, etc." is to hire them or train them or both. If they go fly for
American or United it doesn't really do the FBO any good...

Do most graduating student pilots go on to fly professionally like that?
In my "aviation social circle", we're all GA-ers. But that's the result
of the selection process; I've no idea what people pass through training
and then "move on".

I can take the plane for
multi-day trips even if I only fly an hour away, and if I want to go
somewhere, even at the last minute, there's almost always a plane
available (although not always a Bo). Summer weekends are a little bit
busy, but the club has instituted rules to prevent abuse and help ensure
availability.

I'm curious: what rules?

But you're right about multi-day trips. I'd forgotten about FBOs' daily
minimums because clubs (certainly mine, and I presume most if not all)
don't have that.

[Although: I once rented from an FBO and deliberately planned the trip for
"inside" the daily minimum (so I'd not have to pay one). Weather delayed
my return such that I should have paid it, but the FBO said "no". That
was decent of them.]


For renters, I think it's the perfect scenario. We've had some members
buy their own planes or partner on a plane and leave the club,

That's the way most people "graduate" here too.

but to be
honest, I think they're crazy. If their plane goes in for service,
they're SOL. If one of the club planes goes in for service, there are
several others to choose from...

That's my reasoning!

On the other hand, though, there are 45 (or whatever size club you have)
to satisfy when making decisions in a club. If most are VFRers, for
example, will they all want to spend money for backup vacuum and WAAS?
Most of the people that graduate to their own planes do so for "more
plane" (in one way or another) than the club has (ie. one fellow left for
a twin, another left for a brand new SR-22, etc.).

On the other other hand, we get to share the work too in the club which
helps keep the "costs" down in a complete different way.


Anyway, I think to answer Jeff's original question - clubs are the way
to go to keep this industry alive.

That's a very interesting point (and one which naturally appeals to me {8^).

[...]

The only other way to save this industry (and maybe this country) is to
kill all the lawyers and insurance companies.

Don't forget the FAA mouthpieces for the airline industry trying to push
for a tax break for them funded by GA fees.

I read in some magazine a funny aside: from where are all those VLJs going
to come given the shrinking pilot population?

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote in
news
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 16:03:18 +0000, Judah wrote:

[...]


I believe the FBOs want students more then renters.

You raise some excellent points about which I'd forgotten. Every FBO
from which I rented had some type of "daily minimum" for this reason.

Neither FBO on my field had a daily minimum as recently as 2001. One of
them subbed out their flight school/rental operation to American Flyers in
2001 (just before 9/11) and stopped renting planes altogether. The other
one continued without daily minimums (on Millenium SPs no less!) through at
least 2003 or 2004. I remember shortly after joining the flight club I
belong to that I got a letter from the FBO introducing the daily minimums
and indicating they would now be enforced. Even with minimums, I tend to
believe that student flights are the top revenue source for airplane rental
for FBOs... I don't believe it's anywhere near the highest revenue item on
their Income Statement, as compared with Tiedown/Hangar rentals, Fuel, and
service.

The big difference, I'd guess, is that the long trip included a lot of
weekdays during which there's less student activity.

Most of my travels are during the week as well, and it may have been why I
got some leeway with the FBO even for overnight and two night trips. But
anything longer, even during the week, drew quite a bit of attention. And I
don't remember ever taking a plane over a weekend night.

Do most graduating student pilots go on to fly professionally like that?
In my "aviation social circle", we're all GA-ers. But that's the result
of the selection process; I've no idea what people pass through training
and then "move on".

I'm not certain. My guess is that most of the young student pilots that
fall into the under-30 category are working their way toward a career as a
pilot, and most of the over-30's are not. I also suspect that most under-
30s are getting their primary training at Aeronautical Colleges and
organized, accellerated programs (like American Flyers, perhaps) and not at
the local FBO. My guess is that of the ones that go to College for it, a
relatively high percentage go all the way to at least the regional jet
level, and of the ones that start at a local Part 61 FBO, a much smaller
percentage go all the way.

But that's my perception and opinion, based on observations that mostly
include bigger cities like HPN where I am based.

available (although not always a Bo). Summer weekends are a little bit
busy, but the club has instituted rules to prevent abuse and help
ensure availability.

I'm curious, what rules?

Basically, any one member can only make 4 total weekend reservations
significantly in advance during the summer. From Wednesday at noon on you
can make a reservation for the following weekend and it does not count
toward the advance reservation restriction. It seems to work, but I could
be wrong because I don't really rent much on the weekends. On the few
occassions when I have rented on the weekend, I was pretty much able to
make the reservation the day before or the same day. I didn't always get
the plane I wanted, but I didn't get totally blocked out either.

On the other hand, though, there are 45 (or whatever size club you have)
to satisfy when making decisions in a club. If most are VFRers, for
example, will they all want to spend money for backup vacuum and WAAS?
Most of the people that graduate to their own planes do so for "more
plane" (in one way or another) than the club has (ie. one fellow left
for a twin, another left for a brand new SR-22, etc.).

Certainly there are still some people out there with "unlimited" budgets
for buying a new SR-22. But what's another couple-of-hundred a month to
continue to have a backup plan?

Our club has 8 planes (2 Archers, 3 Arrows, and 3 Bonanzas) and is
chartered for 80 people. We actually only have about 70 members right now,
in some sense because of exactly what you described above. When I joined
the club a few years ago it was smaller (60 members, 6 planes, IIRC) and
had 2 of each type of plane. In the last few years, our club has certainly
faced some challenges, especially with respect to the growth, and to the
differing opinions of priorities. In the end, though, things have worked
out.

Anyway, I think to answer Jeff's original question - clubs are the way
to go to keep this industry alive.

That's a very interesting point (and one which naturally appeals to me
{8^).

[...]

The only other way to save this industry (and maybe this country) is to
kill all the lawyers and insurance companies.

Don't forget the FAA mouthpieces for the airline industry trying to push
for a tax break for them funded by GA fees.

Aren't they lawyers? Or just Lobbyists?

"Not anyone can become a Lobbyist. You have to have a
moral flexibility that goes beyond most people."
- Nick Naylor

I read in some magazine a funny aside: from where are all those VLJs
going to come given the shrinking pilot population?

More importantly, who's going to train the pilots?

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
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.

good stuff snipped

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

As you say, ditching flight training may be savvy, but only for a short
period. If a particular FBO's business horizon is 5 years, then (maybe)
doing away with flight training makes sense. On the other hand, if they plan
on being in business for the long haul, they are gonna have a tough time.
They won't have students, renters, or even owners to deal with once the
supply of pilots ages out.

Again, it is a short vs long term thing. Too many FBO's are taking a short
term approach and effectively killing the industry's future.

KB

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:46:06 -0400, Kyle Boatright wrote:

Again, it is a short vs long term thing. Too many FBO's are taking a
short term approach and effectively killing the industry's future.

It's a variation of the prisoners' dilemma or a tragedy of the commons, I
think: they expect the other FBOs to "raise" the new pilots.

- Andrew

I'm just trying to start a conversation here. I'm excited personally about
my re-instated medical and getting back in the air, but at the same time,
I'm concerned that status quo isn't gonna cut it anymore.

Great post, Jeff. You're on the right track.

Kyle's point about flight training is also critical. We've got the
same situation in Iowa City, saddled with an FBO that sees flight
training as a "loser" and has raised rates accordingly. The result is
precisely what they desired: Less flight training.

This short-term thinking is going to have very bad results in the near
future. When asked about using LSAs for training, to keep costs down,
their answer was blunt and to the point: We don't do that.

My advice? Mentor your friends. I've personally mentored two people
from zero to Private, and am working on the third -- my son. IMHO if
we don't individually take responsibility for this situation -- each
of us, right now -- GA is going to die right before our eyes.

Congrats on being back in the sky -- and hope to see you at NEXT
year's HOPS party!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I believe LSA is the way to go, but that does not necessarily mean
operating under the sport pilot rules. This could be the single most
important factor for rescuing GA from dying. Anyone can fly the LSA,
even under IFR, and is a much more economical option than the normal
category airplanes. Our club recently got rid of the 172 and bought a
brand new LSA, with a fully loaded panel, and the response has been
very positive. The airplane is being flown significantly more than the
other airplanes. The hourly cost is $50/hr tach which is almost half
that of the 172. For two people flying, you can't beat the price to
performance ratio. With more LSA coming into the scene, I see a bright
future ahead.




On Jul 31, 8:53 am, Jay Honeck wrote:
I'm just trying to start a conversation here. I'm excited personally about
my re-instated medical and getting back in the air, but at the same time,
I'm concerned that status quo isn't gonna cut it anymore.

Great post, Jeff. You're on the right track.

Kyle's point about flight training is also critical. We've got the
same situation in Iowa City, saddled with an FBO that sees flight
training as a "loser" and has raised rates accordingly. The result is
precisely what they desired: Less flight training.

This short-term thinking is going to have very bad results in the near
future. When asked about using LSAs for training, to keep costs down,
their answer was blunt and to the point: We don't do that.

My advice? Mentor your friends. I've personally mentored two people
from zero to Private, and am working on the third -- my son. IMHO if
we don't individually take responsibility for this situation -- each
of us, right now -- GA is going to die right before our eyes.

Congrats on being back in the sky -- and hope to see you at NEXT
year's HOPS party!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"