Bulldog TRA: Are you satisfied ?

[Flylogical]

It's been almost six months since the shocker of DHSL unilaterally dropping their TCH for the (Scottish Aviation Bulldog), then announcing days later that we need to pay them (approx ) GBP 800 plus VAT per year to keep each of our Bulldogs on a UK CofA.

Around that time and since, I'm aware that many people complained to DHSL about service-levels, pricing, commitments (to spar mod etc), but apparently to little effect (as far as I can surmise, there has been no change in terms, policy, etc, coming out of DHSL).

Having attended the DHSL-hosted owner/operator workshop in Duxford earlier in the year, and not getting my concerns adequately addressed there, I contacted the CAA in March (just before the TRA changes took effect). They said "if a majority of Bulldog owners are dissatisfied with the TRA arrangements, then we [the CAA] will have to listen".

So, I would like to pose a simple question: of the Bulldog owners out there who are affected, are you (i) satisfied or (ii) dissatisfied with the new TRA arrangements.

This is not a formal survey. I'm merely trying to guage the general sentiment/opinion in the Bulldog fleet, before my next call to the CAA. My own opinion is that we deserve better.

I appreciate if Bulldog owners could provide their tuppence-worth....

[Jim59]

There have been similar issues in the gliding world with DG and the LS range.

It caused a lot of bad feeling and there has been extensive comment on the web.

[x34gunner]

Absolutely. DHSL are really trying it on, I have a couple of years left until my CofA is due so hopefully we can get things resolved before then.

DHSL have requested payment for the TRA even though the CofA has a couple of years to run. They are taking the proverbial...

[Grilla01]

Hi Yusuf,

No I'm not at all satisfied either by th price demanded or by DHSL's rude and unhelpful attitude.

Thanks for conducting this survey!

David

[Flylogical]

Absolutely. DHSL are really trying it on, I have a couple of years left until my CofA is due so hopefully we can get things resolved before then.

DHSL have requested payment for the TRA even though the CofA has a couple of years to run. They are taking the proverbial...

I asked the CAA that very question. The answer is definitive: there is no requirement to join TRA until your current CofA expires. DHSL are misrepresenting the facts if they say otherwise. DO NOT GIVE THEM your money unless you are OK with handing over GBP800 (plus VAT) for nothing in return.

[Penny Washers]

Flylogical is clearly upset that his free ride with the Bulldog (paid for all these years entirely by BAE Systems Plc) has at last come to an end.

It is hardly fair to blame de Havilland Support for this new situation. They have dropped their Design Authority status in favour of the much simpler, and cheaper, Type Responsibility Agreement, which enables Bulldogs (among others) to remain on C of A if the owners so wish.

So far, you have no problems with that, Flylogical?

But in the real world, rents have to be paid, liability insurance funded, CAA fees met, and the staff have to live. Divide all these expenses by the number of Bulldogs which are to remain on C of A, and the answer is never going to please you. Those owners who use their Bulldogs for commencial purposes will have to take this on as an extra operating expense, but there is always the option of converting to permit operations for all the rest. As the owner of one of the other types affected by the changes, this is the route I shall probably take.

I cannot comment on whether DHSL have asked for payment prematurely, or merely for a commitment so that they can do their sums (I am not employed by DHSL in any way) but the CAA Information Notice para. 4.3.1 clearly states that owners using their aircraft for commercial activities should have an agreement in place with the TRA holder by the 1st May 2012.

I suggest that if you order a taxi, you should be prepared to pay for it. Otherwise, take the bus.

[It's only Me]

A sensible question. Most of us live at airfields where there is only one Bulldog there. It was very hard to get a definitive answer from the CAA or anything more than a politicians answer from DHSL.

But, no, you do not have to pay until your present C of A runs out.

The only time I have ever spoken to DHSL is regarding this, everything else is done through our airfield based engineer.

Me

[robin]

Probably the biggest mystery in aviation to me is how European governments get away with issuing a Type Certificate that requires a private organization to exist. Firstly, it indicates that government is not prepared to do its job, and secondly it awards a monopoly for non-discretionary service.


... and for certain aircraft, a non-existent service

[Dan the weegie]

Aside from those who want to use their aircraft for the purposes of training not rated pilots or renting them out to people for profit, what benefit is there from not moving on to an LAA permit?

[robin]

Not having to join the LAA for one.........:ok:

[InfraBoy]

Well you can't fly at night or in IMC in a permit aircraft yet and probably won't be able to for a few years yet.

[robin]

If ever, for some

[Big Sand]

As a Bulldog owner for almost 8years may I share my own views regarding the recent changes to the TCH / TRA etc. I think we are all realistic enough to agree that there is no such thing in this life as a 'free lunch'. I think that is regardless of whether you are a provider of a service or a customer. In the current economic climate there has never been a higher drain on personal finances nor a greater need to provide value for money and accountability as a business.

As Penny Washers eludes to the funding of DHSL by BAe Systems has recently come to an end and should DHSL be blamed for this 'new' situation. My take on this is different. Surely, this will not have been news to DHSL that funding was on finite time frame? In fact was it not DHSL that were getting a free ride courtesy of BAe Systems and not Flylogical?. If, armed with the knowledge, that the BAe funding was coming to an end what other methods of funding that business were explored and developed?. We are ALL living and many of us operating businesses in very challenging economic times but the answer to solving business problems is not to unilaterally put up prices and expect not to be challenged or expect that your customers are not going to expect value and accountability.

Personally, I am disappointed that DHSL have adopted this particular strategy and I fear have disenfranchised many in the Bulldog community in the process. I am not expecting a free ride. However, if I am suddenly and unilaterally expected to pay almost £1,000 a year then I am expecting value and accountability for that money. (If my licensed engineer presented a bill for £800 +VAT for labour I would expect probably around 20hrs of tangible work for that) Is my service provider giving me value for money?. Are they proactive?. Do they listen and act upon what I want as a customer?. The spar mod is one of the most pressing issues for most Bulldog owners - it's been discussed for all the time I have owned my aircraft but 8years later where is it?. Also, who is fighting our corner in terms of availability of economic parts?. More recently it has been discussed that pricing on fatigue meter servicing has significantly increased. Have DHSL done anything to help their customers on this?.

The need for DHSL to be economically viable is I think understood by most Bulldog owners. However, if they are being expected to pay for that then be prepared to add value and accountability for the service you provide. Within the Bulldog community there are people with a breadth of business skills that I am sure could have helped DHSL to develop other revenue schemes and help them to shape the service for owners. We should all be working towards the same objectives and not against each other as appears to be the case currently. As I have found in business you seldom win a war with a customer - the occasional battle perhaps but not a War.

[Sir George Cayley]

Well reasoned Big Sand. I'm in a very customer focused industry where competition for income gets harder by the month. I wonder if DHSL have ever heard of the Law of Diminishing returns.

I don't know how many Bulldogs are in the fleet (or should that be Pack?) but even 1 owner changing to Permit status will impact on their revenue streams.

What other a/c do DHSL organise TRAs for? Will a similar situation occur elsewhere?

Lastly, Flylogical is there an owners club or a section within the Pup Club?

SGC

[jxk]

The whole Bulldog history is one of bureaucracy gone mad:

The spar situation: as far as I know this came about as a result of fatigue testing in a test rig by the manufacturer; I don't think any aircraft in service has ever shown any sign of failure.
The modification requires a longer spar doubler and holes reamed out to a non standard bolt size. Because of the odd size of the bolts it costs a fortune.
Also, the Pup with a similar spar has, if I remember correctly, a life of 16,000hrs.
Stick tops: I believe there was one failure in Hong Kong where the aircraft was left out in the baking sun for some while. Surely, the integrity of these could easily be ascertained by any competent engineer on an 100hr inspection basis.
Seat belts: Again this is a similar situation to above. The belts I've seen are far more robust that most aircraft have.
Fatigue Meter: Another hokey exercise which relies on the owner not pulling the circuit breaker when doing aeros.
The RAF were rooked by the industry when you consider the price of spares, as a consequence the training role was put out to contract.

I love(d) flying the Bulldog a wonderfully responsive aircraft and a delight to fly.
I'll stand back and wait for the flak!

[Big Sand]

Sir George,
"The law of diminishing returns" is rather apt. I tended to find that satisfied customers were generally good for business.:ok: Regards Bulldogs on the UK reg I believe there are circa 61 of which have a requirement for a CofA I am not sure but not difficult to establish. In context there are 122 Chipmunks on the UK reg and 175 Tiger Moth types which puts the Bulldog fleet into perspective but also the revenue potential of some of the types covered by DHSL.

There is a Bulldog owners section as part of the Pup owners club. Despite the relatively low numbers of Bulldogs it's an aircraft that a lot of people have an affection for having been used for many years as the basic RAF training aircraft and generates a lot of interest from past and present pilots.

VBR SB

[Flylogical]

Penny Washers says:

Flylogical is clearly upset that his free ride with the Bulldog (paid for all these years entirely by BAE Systems Plc) has at last come to an end.

It is hardly fair to blame de Havilland Support for this new situation. They have dropped their Design Authority status in favour of the much simpler, and cheaper, Type Responsibility Agreement, which enables Bulldogs (among others) to remain on C of A if the owners so wish.


As Big Sand noted, DHSL will have certainly known about the impending "fiscal cliff" many years ago. The original contract from BAE will undoubtedly have had a finite term associated with it (no commercial contract has unlimited duration). DHSL should therefore have been preparing for the transition in a professional manner, involving the Bulldog owners, the ultimate stakeholders, in the process. Instead of which, it seems they scrambled for a chair when the music stopped.

A main objection of mine and other owners I've talked to is the way in which this transition was conducted. DHSL unilaterally abandoned the Bulldog TCH without any consultation with the owners. Then, in the same announcement, we were informed that the exclusive TRA would be awarded to DHSL. There was no consultation or any effective opportunity for owners to have a say on this important decision. We were then informed by DHSL that we had to pay them on the order of GBP 800 plus VAT in order to retain our CofA. Again, no consultation, discussion, or negotiation. Given the manner in which the entire process was handled, suitable alternate providers of the TRA simply didn't have the opportunity to compete against DHSL.


So far, you have no problems with that, Flylogical?


Actually, I do. See above comments.


But in the real world, rents have to be paid, liability insurance funded,


We **do not** owe DHSL a living. If they wish to charge a given price for a service they offer, it should be us the customers who decide if their offering is worth the money they are asking. The TRA holder serves the aircraft owners, not the other way round. DHSL should describe what services they are offering, and we should assess if we wish to procure their services. If we don't, we should have the option to choose a competing offer. However, the manner in which DSHL were essentially imposed on us as the exclusive TRA holder, makes it effectively impossible for us to question their offering if we wish to retain our CofA. This is anti-competitive, and raises important questions about competition law.

CAA fees met

I specifically asked the CAA what fees DHSL have to pay for the TRA rights. Their answer was "none". So, if you are referring to other CAA fees that DHSL have to pay, unrelated to the Bulldog TRA, then these are of no concern to us.


and the staff have to live.


Again, we do not owe DHSL a living. Their internal costs are of no relevance to this discussion. What matters is whether or not they can provide a decent service at a sensible price to their customers. If not, they should not be in this business. Customers are the most valuable commodity a business can have. DHSL should treat its customers as a valued asset. Without customers, and without BAE subsidies, they are done for.


Divide all these expenses by the number of Bulldogs which are to remain on C of A, and the answer is never going to please you.


The concept of running a viable business on the potential income generated from merely administering the TRA for the Bulldog fleet (60 or so aircraft) is simply not viable (if indeed that is what you are suggesting ?). The corollary of this is that we Bulldog TRA members should certainly not be subsidising DHSL's internal costs for their other activities unrelated to the Bulldog TRA.

Moreover, when questioned on the price-point of approximately GBP 800 (plus VAT) for the TRA, DHSL responded by saying that they assumed an implicit opt-in of 20% or so of Bulldog owners, the remaining 80% they assumed would opt for a Permit-To-Fly. By contrast, in a recent survey conducted by the Bulldog Owners' Club, 80% or so of owners said they would prefer to remain on the CofA if the price was reasonable. By simple arithmetic, this suggests that DHSL could achieve the same target revenues by charging GBP 200 (plus VAT) as opposed to GBP 800. Now, GBP 200 is still a significant sum to pay, so DHSL need to explain to us what sevices we will receive for the money. If DHSL had consulted us before the transition, they might have won our sympathy, and we could together have negotiated sensible terms including price etc.


Those owners who use their Bulldogs for commencial purposes will have to take this on as an extra operating expense


...but if this goes unchallenged, so do the others who wish to retain their CofA, even if they are not operating commercially. For example, I am in this category. I need to invoke the privileges of my IMC rating in order to operate safely in adverse weather conditions. I cannot do so on a Permit.

, but there is always the option of converting to permit operations for all the rest.


This should **not** be a decision forced upon us by DHSL's business practices. Apart from any other considerations, a Bulldog on a Permit will be worth less than on a CofA when it comes to re-sale. Will DHSL compensate us for that loss in value caused by their unilateral actions and policies ? (I thought not).


.... but the CAA Information Notice para. 4.3.1 clearly states that owners using their aircraft for commercial activities should have an agreement in place with the TRA holder by the 1st May 2012.


See my first point. The current state-of-affairs (in terms of choice of TRA holder) was effectively imposed on us as a "done deal". If you now question DHSL directly, they simply point to the CAA notice and, in effect, hide behind it. That is unacceptable (at least to most of us) and needs to be challenged. As I explained when I started this thread, the CAA have made it clear that "they have to take notice if the majority of Bulldog owners are dissatisfied with the current TRA arrangements". So, this is an opportunity to change the situation should the majority of the Bulldog owners wish to do so.


I suggest that if you order a taxi, you should be prepared to pay for it. Otherwise, take the bus.


That is an odd analogy...but let's continue with it. First, I did not "order a taxi". If I did, I would call a firm of my own choosing that charges sensibly and communicates with me effectively. I would certainly not willingly give my business to a company that imposes itself at the front of the queue saying "you have to pay me this amount, or you don't travel".

Finally, it seems that DHSL are now uncommunicative with the Bulldog owners who are challenging them. Many people have questioned their pricing and have tried to get clarification on the terms of the TRA etc. They have either had no response, or received a rebuttal saying "refer to the CAA notice if you have any further questions about the TRA".

In my own case, my correspondence to DSHL has gone unanswered for six months. All I've received is a note to the effect of "we are too busy attending to airworthiness issues to answer your questions just now". Once the six-month point transpired, I posted this thread.

I've recently reported DHSL's lack of responsiveness to the CAA. Their comment was "That's not an effective way for them to deal with their customers". Indeed.

[Rod1]

“This should **not** be a decision forced upon us by DHSL's business practices. Apart from any other considerations, a Bulldog on a Permit will be worth less than on a CofA when it comes to re-sale.”

That is an interesting comment. If we take other fleets that have transferred such as Austers and Jodels the value has gone up on transfer. If we take a mixed fleet like the Cub fleet, permit examples sell for more than C of A examples. Is there some reason that the Dog should be the exception?

Rod1

[robin]

Rod1

It isn't just about value, but the ability to continue doing what owners are already doing.

[Rod1]

robin I was just quoting Flylogical and asking a question to understand his argument. The Dog is a lovely aircraft – I have a friend who owns one at the strip and I get to play from time to time. I suspect that each year there will be a slow leak of aircraft to a permit and the costs will rise and that will accelerate the process, but if the owns want to take over the TRA I assume DHSL would do a deal. Possibly the only way out?

Rod1

[Flylogical]

rod1

Reasons why a Bulldog on a permit has less value to me, and therefore, I would expect, to many others:

No night flying
No IFR or IMC
No commercial use
Restrictions on flying abroad

Also, robin is right: as well as the possible financial devaluation, it's about loss of usability due to no fault of our own.

[jxk]

Flylogical #22
Quite right just imagine the uproar if this scenario applied to Cessna or Piper aircraft owners.
It's the restrictions incurred by moving to a LAA permit which is the problem.

[Flylogical]

Given the strong and generally negative comments regarding the current Bulldog TRA situation, I've created an online survey here (http://bit.ly/SPhYhj) . If you are a Bulldog owner/operator and you wish to participate in this campaign for change, please complete the online survey. I will consolidate the responses and include them in my next approach to the CAA on this issue.