How to promote this thing we do (long post)

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?

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:08:50 +0000, Judah wrote:


Neither FBO on my field had a daily minimum as recently as 2001.

Wow.

One of
them subbed out their flight school/rental operation to American Flyers in
2001 (just before 9/11) and stopped renting planes altogether.

This certainly backs up your idea that training and rental aren't much as
compared to the services provided to other aircraft.

[...]

Do most graduating student pilots go on to fly professionally like that?

[...]
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.

That's my guess too. So the FBOs aren't [mostly] training people that are
going to go on to aviation careers. Thus, at least in the aggregate (over
all FBOs), they are training the "next generation" of GA-ers.

And that makes them "important" in the task of raising more GA pilots.

[...]

I'm curious, what rules?

[...]

We've a very different mechanism which may work out about the same. It's
a point-based system. A long booking "costs" 2 points; a short "costs" 1.
Bookings "today" are free, and when a booking rolls around to "today" the
points it cost return to the pilot.

So we can have on the schedule at any moment two long bookings, four
short, or one long and two short.

The "free today" rule means that even someone maxed out can "grab an
available plane and fly".

Like you, I've had little difficulty grabbing a plane for when I wanted
it. More, I've had a two-point booking (a vacation {8^) on the system for
a while, and I've not felt constrained by the fact that I'm running at
only two available points.

Also, frankly, everyone is pretty good about it. I'd a booking that was
immediately followed by someone else's once. I found I wanted to stay
away longer, and a quick call to the other member made it possible.

[...]

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?

Heh Good point. I'll have to remember that if I ever come across my own
unlimited budget grin.

In fact, now that I consider it, we've had and have members that owned
their own aircraft as well. Hmm.


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.

I just recognized you: WFC-HPN.ORG? You're one of the few clubs in the
"neighborhood" with six-seaters. I've noticed that; we have only
four-seaters.

I've also long admired what little I can see about your finances, in that
you seem to keep your aircraft very well equiped for a rather low price.

[...]

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?

I don't know. Some run the FAA, but it doesn't preclude membership in
either/both of those two sets.

[...]

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?

Yet everyone (certainly the VLJ-manufacturers) are expecting the boom.

Perhaps this isn't going to end up being related to GA ("small GA") but
instead airlines. That is, perhaps VLJs will take clients and pilots away
from the airlines (ie. the "air taxi" model)?

But the number of pilots would still need to increase significantly. Yet,
if these are "career" pilots then they'll come though the universities and
rush programs.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote in
news
That's my guess too. So the FBOs aren't [mostly] training people that
are going to go on to aviation careers. Thus, at least in the aggregate
(over all FBOs), they are training the "next generation" of GA-ers.

And that makes them "important" in the task of raising more GA pilots.

Absolutely. And the fact that they generate revenue from it is significant
as well. But I think a better argument is that they need to create pilots
who will buy planes to park at their tiedowns, and bring in to their
service stations.

We've a very different mechanism which may work out about the same. It's
a point-based system. A long booking "costs" 2 points; a short "costs"

[..]

Also, frankly, everyone is pretty good about it. I'd a booking that was
immediately followed by someone else's once. I found I wanted to stay
away longer, and a quick call to the other member made it possible.

That's a pretty cool system. It might be worth exploring if we ever
increase our members-to-plane ratio. Right now, with fewer than 10 members
per plane, scheduling is pretty good... Of course, now I recognize you as
Paramus Flying Club, but admittedly I had to hop online to double check.

Heh Good point. I'll have to remember that if I ever come across my
own unlimited budget grin.

In fact, now that I consider it, we've had and have members that owned
their own aircraft as well. Hmm.

Yeah, those are the best members too because they contribute to the fixed
costs without cluttering up the schedule.

I just recognized you: WFC-HPN.ORG? You're one of the few clubs in the
"neighborhood" with six-seaters. I've noticed that; we have only
four-seaters.

Well I'm not personally the whole club (although I did personally do some
work on the home page and the brochure grin). But yes, that's us. No six-
seaters though. All of our planes currently have 4 seats, but the two V-
Tail Bonanzas have the ability to have a fifth "child seat" installed.

I've also long admired what little I can see about your finances, in that
you seem to keep your aircraft very well equiped for a rather low price.

One of the priorities of the club that almost all members agree with is the
need to keep consistent and useful avionics in the planes. To the point
that when we bought our last two planes, we immediately switched their
avionics to match the rest of the fleet (GNS-480s). There's only one plane
in the fleet that doesn't have a GNS-480, and it's been a topic of debate
because for a while we thought we might be trading it in with the last
purchase instead of just buying the 8th plane. People didn't want to invest
to upgrade the avionics on a plane that wasn't going to be with the club
much longer. There's still an undercurrent of people who think we may end
up selling off that plane... But the club seems to waffle on it.