What flight schools do that students hate?

[Mile high club 7]

Hey guys, just curious from those of you who are currently undergoing flight training or are already cpl's...



*What have flight school's done thats made you dissapointed, angry, scared or you name it?

and/or

*Was there procedures,policies,rules or a way of doing things that the flight school implemented in their operations that you disagreed on and if so why?

NOTE: please no flight school names, im interested in what happened not who did it! :ok:

look forward to you inputs :p

[mad_jock]

Charge and make the student fly a 170A for CPL

[Pilotage]

Failure to reliably make a serviceable aeroplane and an instructor available when they've been booked, or to have available slots for several weeks.

[VFE]

I thought the 170A was a pre-test licensing requirement for IR and CPL or has this altered with EASA?

[mad_jock]

170A for a CPL was only a paper work check of course complete.

There was no requirement for a flight test.

I didn't do one in 2001 at the start of JAR. Yet others on the same airfield were paying 900 quid in aircraft and approach fees and 350 quid 170a test fee.

[localflighteast]

The main thing that my flight school did that irritated the heck out of me was sign up more people for ground school than they physically had space for

It's annoying to spend a reasonable amount of money to have to turn up an hour before in order to get a seat in the classroom at an actual table and not end up practically in the hallway on a fold out stool

[Cobalt]

The combination of

- insisting to teach approach and landing at speeds 5-10kt higher than recommended by the POH for the conditions

- and then requiring additional short field / grass field training because no student can reasonably be expected to land a PA28 in less than 800m

annoys me.

[BillieBob]

Charge and make the student fly a 170A for CPLThe 170A no longer exists. However, it is now, under EASA, the responsibility of the organisation or person responsible for the training to make a formal (written) recommendation for test. Mutterings from the Belgrano suggest that this will be used as a means of measuring the 'outcomes' of individual ATOs and a poor record of first time passes following the recommendations will put the organisation's approval at risk. It is conceivable, therefore, that ATOs will be more inclined to (re)introduce a 'pre-test' test as part of the syllabus.

[mad_jock]

I can't see what the pass rate has got to do with the belgrano. Even if they wanted to remove the auth if the ATO meets all the required ticks in boxes they have no option but to let them continue.

As we all know the first time pass rate is directly related to who the local examinors are.

One bit of the country you will get a first time pass others a partial and others a fail for exactly the same flight profile.

Although that rumour that it will effect the ATO approval will more than likely be used as an excuse for raping the student.

I have no problem at all with a mock test being included in the syllabus but it shouldn't be in addition to the minimum required training. And a examinor fee shouldn't be required.

[proudprivate]

What flight schools do that students hate?


* have a student show up for a lesson and not having an instructor available
* have a student show up for a lesson and not having the aircraft servicable
* charge £600+ for a question database
* deliver substandard study materials and claim this is to make sure "the student learns how to use the CAA's website and other online resources"
* generally overcharge for the use of their aircraft
* charge ground school time for flimsy and unstructured debriefs


As this sounds all too negative, let me add a few things that flight schools do that students like :
* they don't overcharge for flight instruction
* they are creative in avoiding students having to pay landing fees
* they make good use of simulators

[FANS]

employ FI's that are not interested in GA, but just hour building for that next (elusive) move;

use knackered aircraft, with various bits not quite working how they should

make the slots for each lesson too tight

charge students for a cup of tea (after handing them a bill for £200+)

For PPL, not have a focus on enjoyment

[dobbin1]

Instruments made by that famous manufacturer "INOP"

[FlyingStone]

The combination of

- insisting to teach approach and landing at speeds 5-10kt higher than recommended by the POH for the conditions

- and then requiring additional short field / grass field training because no student can reasonably be expected to land a PA28 in less than 800m

annoys me.

I second that. Plus:

- using yet additional speed buffer for flapless landings (e.g. landing speed with flaps up is cruise speed minus 10 knots) :ugh:
- using flaps for takeoff as SOP on 2+ km paved runways, even if POH/AFM says normal takeoff is with flaps up
- retracting flaps after above said takeoff example at not lower than 400ft, because this is the "lowest acceleration altitude" - even at density altitudes at 3k+ in a spamcan @ MTOM
- not teaching even the slightest use of GPS (if installed), since "it's forbidden to use it for VFR navigation" and all that jazz
- teaching that line-up is supposed to be done by following the nice yellow line to the runway centerline :ugh:
- using "airline-style" checklists - then discovering that checklist for 737 has 2/3 less items than for a single-pilot day VMC flown spamcan :ugh:
- insisting that students do W&B before each flight with weighing data from 10 years ago (and of course using the same data for entire fleet of same type)
- read and do checklists in the air :ugh:
- teaching students not to use that little red knob/lever - its color clearly means it's made from devil himself
- flying "stabilised approaches" with gear down, full flaps and prop forward from 2 NM before FAF in a SEP

And the list could go on....

[Aware]

and then requiring additional short field / grass field training because no student can reasonably be expected to land a PA28 in less than 800m.

Ive spent 10 years teaching PPLs from a 500 metre strip, in a PA28 without any problem.. I have also taught PPLs in a C152 to land on rwy with an LDA of 370 metres, also without any problem.(Although we got the fire engine out), on first solo.

At the correct speed of course.

[macdo]

Had to laugh with this thread, nothing has changed from 25 years ago and probably never will.:ok:

[mad_jock]

Actually the schools that are stricked with the punters seem to have the least complaints.

It needs to be a two way contract other wise the whole operation goes to rat poo.

[niceday2700classic]

Bad things:

Not teaching students how (and why you should) lean the mixture.

Not fixing anything that goes INOP unless the failure actually grounds the aircraft.

Telling students never to prime with the throttle, without telling them WHY (fire risk aside) it appears to be a more effective way of starting a cold engine. Some aircraft actually prescribe it in the POH.

Giving students an aircraft for their skills test that they've never flown before and which has a very different instrument and switches layout from everything else they've flown.

Not telling students that they ought to be carrying a copy of Pooleys on their skills test because the examiner may well divert them to an unfamiliar airfield, ask them to dig out the plate and fly some circuits.

Letting the day's schedule slip such that a student who has moved heaven and earth at work to get to the airfield for 1800 arrives to find their instructor still in the air. If an earlier student was late, then their lesson should still finish on time.

Not specifically teaching it, but giving students the impression that you should fly everywhere at 3,000ft.

Teaching IMC students to intercept the localiser and set full flap and 65 knots (PA28) before descending on the glideslope, thus allowing the grass to grow so long it obscures the runway before decision height is reached. Also once you finally land, the annual is due and you can't take off again to go home.

Teaching students to clog up a busy LARS frequency on the weekend by asking for a basic service (slowly, with lots of umms, ahhs and errs and unnecessary info like the number of people on board) when going for a local bimble.

Not explaining to students that the likelihood or otherwise of getting class D transitions and SVFR clearances is largely dependent on how slick your RT is, because that's how the controller forms an opinion about whether you're capable enough to be allowed in their airspace.

Not showing students what it's like to receive a traffic or deconfliction service during their training, so they're scared to ask for one once they have their license because they don't know what will happen.

Hammering the 'maintain VMC at all costs' message to such an extent that new PPLs confronted with a combination of cloud and mountains cannot bring themselves to climb, climb and climb some more. Even if I wasn't instrument-qualified, I'd rather fly into a cloud than a mountain.

Teaching students that the IMCr is an 'emergency get you home rating'. It isn't. It's an instrument qualification that allows you to fly in IMC (OCAS and in class D) and make instrument approaches as a matter of routine. If you don't use the skills with some degree of regularity, then they'll be rusty when you need them to 'get you home'.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Some very good points above.

Most students don't "hate" many of those things though as often they are unaware of them.

IN my experience, the reason students leave thier flight school and go in search of another are simple lack of basic customer service. This is what we often hear:

- I had a different instructor every time

- When I turned up I was told my lesson was cancelled or running so late I had to go [this was my biggest gripe when I was learning but these days with mobile phones there is no excuse!]

- My instructor was always angry and imapatient and showed no respect

- My instructor had poor personal hygiene/ stank of garlic

- The aeroplanes were old and small and smelt of sick and I didn't feel safe with all that gaffa tape holding it together

- I just felt like a number

- The people on the desk are hostile

- They promised me I'd get a job with Qantas straight after CPL but a Qantas pilot just told me that's not actually true

- Unexpected costs bumping up the invoice every time

- Endless repetition of the same lesson with no explanation why

- I felt that I might have actually been able to learn how to land if my instructor hadn't always been texting and facebooking on final

Just basic customer service, it's not hard.

but yeah my biggest gripe now is when students come from another school and I have to tell them that "But my last instructor said I should always..." does NOT override the POH or whatever other reference is applicable...! Why don't instructors tell thier students WHY they should do things? Is it because they really only know the old wives tales?

[xrayalpha]

What flight schools do that students hate?

Flying schools that tell students who "forget" they had a lesson that day that they really should give the instructor some cash, otherwise he/she will starve.

Flying schools that give students a row for turning up late so that, if the full lesson is to be flown, then the instructor will lose their break or other students will have to wait.

Flying schools that pull aside students who have a couple of university degrees yet turn up for a cross-country flight without any preparation and planning "because I was very busy last night", and say: that is not good enough.

Flying schools who point out that they get less money in the bank for a given £100 if paid using a credit card, so would the student like to pay a 3% excess to make up for that - since they can't pay cash, write a cheque or use internet/telephone banking.

Flying schools put up with a lot of grief from their customers - like all customer-focused businesses do.

Fortunately, we try not to show it!

(as one person said to me today, you chaps always seem to be very relaxed. As I replied, running around in a blind panic never helps anyone - particularly "in flight" with a less confident student)

[Duchess_Driver]

OK - I'll bite

Flying schools that tell students who "forget" they had a lesson that day that they really should give the instructor some cash, otherwise he/she will starve.

Quite right.... you 'forget' - your problem. I'm a busy man and if you book my time expect to be billed for it - If I don't fly, I DON'T GET PAID. Someone else could have been paying me for that 'wasted' hour.

Flying schools that give students a row for turning up late so that, if the full lesson is to be flown, then the instructor will lose their break or other students will have to wait.


OK - The guy down next in line suffers because you can't assemble your exrecement... why should he? Take that down the line and the end of the day runs into night time and you startlosing whole slots. See point 1 above.


Flying schools that pull aside students who have a couple of university degrees yet turn up for a cross-country flight without any preparation and planning "because I was very busy last night", and say: that is not good enough.


PMSL at this. WTF does a degree or any othe qualification have to do with flying. Straightforward bad attitude. Quite correct to pull the student up. We'd certainly not be getting in an aeroplane if you did that with me. See point 2 above.

Flying schools who point out that they get less money in the bank for a given £100 if paid using a credit card, so would the student like to pay a 3% excess to make up for that - since they can't pay cash, write a cheque or use internet/telephone banking.


Fair ish point - but the credit card companies/banks actaully do charge the operator for this so why should the flying school suffer? Perhaps the better option would be to hide the charge in the hourly rate anyway.

Can we start a thread that deals with things that students do that annoy ops staff or instructors?

[Anonystude]

... like gold-y or bronze-y, Blackadder, only with iron ...;)

[flystrathclyde]

I need to agree to a certain extent with Duchess Driver.

With margins so tight, it is essential for a flying school to run efficiently in order to provide good value AND stay in business.

While the points made are detrimental to the income of the school and instructors, it also affects the other students.

Taking into account the cancellations due to weather I cannot see a logical explanation how any school can effectively operate without running efficiently.

I recall a very productive discussion with a former student:-

"If the school does not need to fly as much as possible to ensure the costs are met, there are obviously savings to be made by running an efficient school and trying to fly as much as possible. Therefore, it is obviously possible to offer 'better value' to current students and members".

I think this was a good point!

[mad_jock]

Just before I stopped full time instructing I managed to get a ground/air instructor working weekends and a solo hire machine.

The idea was that the solo hire plane was just sitting there and the instructor was there to sort out any issues with flight checks and also doing the job of selling and answering any questions. They could also jump in and give briefs to trial flights so that when the plane got back they could just jump into the cockpit with a brief word to the instructor that was taking it which routing they wanted. And if someone was late back off a nav ex we could just jump in with any available aircraft.

Worked pretty well to be honest, I usually tried to do that bit with a swap with one of the others when they wanted lunch. I was flying 20 hours plus a week anyway so having a day or two on the ground wasn't a hit to my pocket.

The instructor on the ground though needs to be a face of the company and good at selling for it to be productive.

[xrayalpha]

DD,

My point about two uni degrees: how on earth had they gone through at least five years of university education without learning to prepare properly/identify and achieve standards/deliver on time?

Agree, uni education has nothing to do with flying/driving/scuba etc. But the big thing many peeps promote about uni is that it is a life-long benefit about how to learn!

I actually promote flying as a life-long benefit about being able to prepare and then make critical judgement calls. And a PPL is cheaper than just one year at uni!

[proudprivate]

What flight schools do that students hate?

Flying schools that tell students who "forget" they had a lesson that day that they really should give the instructor some cash, otherwise he/she will starve.

Flying schools that give students a row for turning up late so that, if the full lesson is to be flown, then the instructor will lose their break or other students will have to wait.

Flying schools that pull aside students who have a couple of university degrees yet turn up for a cross-country flight without any preparation and planning "because I was very busy last night", and say: that is not good enough.

Flying schools who point out that they get less money in the bank for a given £100 if paid using a credit card, so would the student like to pay a 3% excess to make up for that - since they can't pay cash, write a cheque or use internet/telephone banking.

Flying schools put up with a lot of grief from their customers - like all customer-focused businesses do.

Fortunately, we try not to show it!


Yes, quite. But that was not what this thread was about. You're working for a flight school yourself and you're just trying to hijack a - thus far - interesting discussion. Poor DD then gets carried away in the discussion, but lets focus on those things that flight schools do wrong and their students hate.

As for a thread on what flight schools hate about students, well, that should just be a matter of clear understandings and credit/cash management, not much different from how you deal with customers in the (equipment) rental business or the leasure business. If you're incapable of loving your customers and enjoying their business, you should probably go work for the civil service - maybe give EASA a try !

I think CFI hit the nail on the head saying that at quite a few RFs and ATOs the basic customer service idea is either lacking or just given lip service.

I think flight schools should have a darn hard look at themselves and ask them if they really provide better value to their clients than a dedicated instructor and his own plane - otherwise referred to on this forum as "teaching from the boot of a car".

From experience, there is very little justification to all this "Approved Training Organisation" nonsense (at least when talking PPL; CPL and ATPL is another matter). Lots of regulations, admin costs and job protection (well at least until the crisis bites).

[mad_jock]

The fact is PP alot of them really don't care about customer service.

And the daft thing is that the customers put up with it. So the schools don;t bother to change anything.

[xrayalpha]

PP,

Very often good customer service comes at a price.

To be frank, it means spending time with staff - monitoring and supervising and educating.

The UK in the past has not been good on customer service. In catering, for example, Europeans and Americans are much much better, albeit in different ways.

We are now improving significantly in many areas, particularly in speed of delivery.

But face-to-face is a problem, and as long as flying schools are in a race to the cheapest, then something has to give.

Spending money on training people how to be nice to paying customers just seems to be one of the first to go!

Yet there are positive examples out there from years back: take M&S who used to be real leaders in customer service, taking back goods without question etc. And were not the cheapest in the market.

But they too have suffered in the ever present pressures on costs.

Maybe it is not too surprising that the most poplular flying schools, restaurants etc are the family-run ones where the results of good customer service can be seen immediately on the bottom line. And can be seen to building a valuable business.

A flying school in rented premises with leased aircraft and "temporary" staff just waiting for a job on an airline is not building value. So just cut costs and take any profit while you can.

And that's the crux of the whole issue, I feel.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

One thing students hate is instructors who insist on eating lunch.

Everyone knows that the lunchtime gap between slots is so that you can come in at zero notice for a quick currency check ride, not so that the instructor can actually take time off to eat lunch!

[fwjc]

1) Aeroplanes that, while they are technically serviceable, are scruffy, dirty, smelly, damp and with bits falling off and inop systems.

2) Training sorties without a clearly defined purpose. This is exacerbated by a poor preflight brief.

3) No post-flight debrief. There is always something to go away and think about. Get the brief and debrief right, and the student will get the best value for money.

4) In-flight feedback. A bit of advice / encouragement / positive comment really helps.

I guess the last three points are all about the communication, which is a two way thing. The instructor is senior so should be following a clear structure and leading by example.

[Dan the weegie]

Aircraft are very expensive beasts - a new trainer costs £130,000 ish and will take decades to return the investment, they don't bring any additional customers and will be wrecked within 2 years of going in to service.

These old knackered machines that look rubbish withstand 500-800 hours a year of abuse by cack handed pilots and are tough enough to withstand it but the plastics and seats are disproportionately expensive and time consuming to replace. If the plastics were freely available and we didn't have to get special CAA approved carpets and upholstery that have to be installed by CAA approved people then that would definitely be something that would change.

Like it or not there is nothing that is sensibly priced that would withstand the same abuse. The new machines available on the market have too many issues and are not strong enough to do the job cost effectively, fancy rotax 17lph notwithstanding, they are simply not cost effective.

As for inop instruments, what should be working is the standard 6 instruments, Ts, Ps, RPM, Radio and Transponder. For basic PPL.

If there's anything else that says U/S so be it, removing it would require reweighing and a CAA modification which is crazy expensive.
More instruments would require people to be willing to pay a premium and they are just simply not. Either way the student doesn't really need to look at it.

[chrisbl]

Very often good customer service comes at a price.


I disagree, most customer service is common sense and based on how you would like to be treated as a customer your self.

If you expect high standards from others then you have to deliver yourself.

Students also need to deliver too. If they have been aske to prepare for a flight they should do it.

[proudprivate]

Maybe it is not too surprising that the most poplular flying schools, restaurants etc are the family-run ones where the results of good customer service can be seen immediately on the bottom line. And can be seen to building a valuable business.


That is very true. Actually it very much resembles the "teaching from the boot of a car - model", only that you have 3 or 4 "owner-storekeepers" instead of one.


A flying school in rented premises with leased aircraft and "temporary" staff just waiting for a job on an airline is not building value. So just cut costs and take any profit while you can.


Agreed on the "temporary" staff bit. I don't agree on the "renting premises and leasing aircraft" bit. That might just be the cheapest solution to offer students glass cockpits as opposed to the usual 1969 INOP Avionics system.


Very often good customer service comes at a price.


That depends on how big the organisation is. If you have father & daugther operation with about 10 members of staff I think customer service is easy to install as a company culture. A caring person at reception who enters each appointment and staff allocation in the online system goes a very long way.



And the daft thing is that the customers put up with [lack of customer care]. So the schools don't bother to change anything.


Some customers don't and go elsewhere. But I agree customer mobility would be better if the "Independent Flight Instructor" model were to be re-instated. It would force the flight schools into offering better value.

Actually I see this happening in the US. Although I'm used to the independent instructor model for FAA instructing in Europe (and it was a good experience), I now much prefer the family run business in the US. Prices are a bit higher but not a lot higher, the planes have better maintenance, appointments are kept and there is a clear agreement on what is going to happen, how the student can prepare, etc, etc...


One thing students hate is instructors who insist on eating lunch.

Everyone knows that the lunchtime gap between slots is so that you can come in at zero notice for a quick currency check ride, not so that the instructor can actually take time off to eat lunch!


No. If the flight school is worth its keep, it would politely turn the student down. Something along the lines of
"I'm sorry but we don't have an instructor available at the moment. Gerald here is eating lunch, but he needs his rest because he has three more lessons this afternoon and he wants to deliver the same good quality to the last student".
Pretty thick student/client that doesn't understand that. And:
"Why don't we schedule an appointment for tomorrow late afternoon ? I see we have availability on G-WOWI with Denise from 4-5 pm".



Students also need to deliver too. If they have been aske to prepare for a flight they should do it.

Ideally, yes. But, hey, they are the customer. I would mention in the debrief : "I'm sorry Mr. Cameron, but these cross wind landings went nowhere. I have the impression that you didn't do any of the armchair flying exercises or re-read chapter 17 of the handbook. You should realise that this is a two-way street. It's your money, of course, but I would think you get more value out of it if you'd came better prepared. I suggest we do some of these again on Wednesday, and please : come prepared".

Again, only the thickest of students would ignore such advice.


As for inop instruments, what should be working is the standard 6 instruments, Ts, Ps, RPM, Radio and Transponder. For basic PPL.


I disagree. In urban development there is something called the "broken windows syndrome". If a building has a broken window, it attracts trash, graffiti, urine, etc... like a magnet, simply because it looks as if it has "less value" and "nobody cares anyway". That is why you need to maintain the aircraft in as good a condition as possible. There is nothing against a temporary placard if an instrument goes INOP, but a the next serious maintenance exercise one should replace it, or take it out.

The CAA and EASA maintenance nightmare are obviously not helping (cfr. your upholstery example). But it is clear that a well maintained plane makes for a more respectful and more focused student.


Aircraft are very expensive beasts - a new trainer costs £130,000 ish and will take decades to return the investment, they don't bring any additional customers and will be wrecked within 2 years of going in to service.


Not at my club, they're not. They will require some overhaul when they are 5-7 years old, but until then, standard maintenance will keep them shining.

[Dan the weegie]

Can I ask how many hours each aircraft flies at your school? At ours we had as few planes as we could and a maintenance company that loved to charge and nowhere else to go. I agree, I would love to remove useless instruments or replace them but it needs to be sensibly economical.

As for the temporary instructors thing, the problem stems from the fact that as a PPL(A) instructor unless you're flying significantly more than you're supposed to it's actually very difficult to make a living out of it because of the margins we work under. Career PPL flying instructors are rare, rarer than rocking horse dung. The only guys who are available are those with real jobs :D but aren't as available as you would like them to be, which brings us back to another complaint which is that people don't like it when you have lack of available instructors.
It is also exploited by flying school owners who have an abundance of willing hour builders.

Club schools are great because they are relaxed and it's for fun but people expect more for their money and want a shiny full time school which is barely economical to run without flying every second possible and paying instructors next to nothing for every hour they fly. There's a balance of course but some stuff has to give. Clubs also often suffer from inevitable "committee breakdown" hard to avoid.

The things that are free however, like treating your customers properly, calling them if you want to move their slot/ talk about cancellation giving a reasonable brief, a warm welcome and free tea and coffee are a bloody good start.

It's not that hard to do the free stuff but it's hard to hire and keep the people that understand it.

[xrayalpha]

Dan,

We fly about 500 hours per aircraft in fragile modern plastic microlights - a couple of C42s and some really "fragile" weightshifts.

Finances are interesting: a new C42 is about 60k, but there are one or maybe two a year that come on the market at 40-42k with about 300 hours on them.

C42s are scarce as hens teeth and very popular, so even a 1700 hour one can fetch 30k.

So if bought at 300hr and sold at 1800hrs then that is about 10k for 1500 hours. In my book that is pretty good depreciation!

Of course we as microlights, are exempt from all that EASA stuff, so can just pop instruments in and out and even swap out the seats (as long as bought from the aircraft manufacturer - so there are some restrictions and quality control).

We are even allowed to use unleaded mogas.

Unfortunately (!), we have to pay instructors £45-odd per hour so they can make a living.

Hence our chaps have all been here for more than five years.

Light aircraft schools have to find a way out of the red-tape strangulation.

As for customer service not costing anything: I think I am aware of what good customer service is, but perhaps some of my co-workers did not share my priorities. (my wife certainly isn't, she would just tell some people to go to hell!)

So it takes time: time to discuss what can be done/what should be done. Time to check it is being done. Time to discuss further improvements. (Oh yes, and time to improve our instruction and develop coherent methods and attitudes and standards based on the syllabus.)

And time costs money - after all, most instructors earn "by the hour".

[Mickey Kaye]

"Light aircraft schools have to find a way out of the red-tape strangulation."

Sadly I don't think this is going to be possible.

[proudprivate]

Can I ask how many hours each aircraft flies at your school? At ours we had as few planes as we could and a maintenance company that loved to charge and nowhere else to go. I agree, I would love to remove useless instruments or replace them but it needs to be sensibly economical.


The club operates 4 aircraft, and we do just under 2000 hours a year. Mind you, that includes solo rentals from members, instruction is only about 1/4 of that.

The check-out is pretty thorough : there is a 40-question quiz which you don't pass unless you have read the POH and understood it and then there's an additional 30 questions on the avionics. It's not a guarantee for renter's competence and care, but it weeds out the "cack handed".


As for the temporary instructors thing, the problem stems from the fact that as a PPL(A) instructor unless you're flying significantly more than you're supposed to it's actually very difficult to make a living out of it because of the margins we work under. Career PPL flying instructors are rare, rarer than rocking horse dung.


None of the PPL instructors are full-time. All of them have real job, or are retired. But as long as you create an environment that keeps them happy and you eradicate the odd-ball that doesn't understand
(a) instructing; and
(b) customer service
I don't see anything wrong. Availability is pretty reasonable.



The things that are free however, like treating your customers properly, calling them if you want to move their slot/ talk about cancellation giving a reasonable brief, a warm welcome and free tea and coffee are a bloody good start.


Yes, yes, yes and yes.


a maintenance company that loved to charge and nowhere else to go.

is one of the cruxes that need to be addressed. If you're dependent on some larcenic EASA part M paper pusher annex parts docs falsifier, you're doomed.

We have some competition at our place, which obviously helps. The only alternative is to incorporate a maintenance facility in the flying club / school. That is the way most US FBO/flight schools operate.

[GgW]

The club operates 4 aircraft, and we do just under 2000 hours a year. Mind you, that includes solo rentals from members, instruction is only about 1/4 of that.

Mind you, that's not bad for solo hiring. Its normally the other way round.I know of a flying club in England where the instructors also do ops. Needless to say all ''prime'' slots get filled up with instructional flight's. I'm not blaming them,I would do the same.

The thing that annoy's me the most from flying club's is the ones that charge very high day membership rate's. I mean what is that all about? Insurance is mostly included in the aircraft insurance. Some flying clubs don't even charge them.

Also flying clubs that charge fuel surcharges on top of the rental price. The price of 100LL/UL91 and Diesel(Jet A1) does not change massively between deliveries. Why not increase/decrease the aircraft rental price on a quarterly basis.

Now as for what students do that annoy's me(instructor), I have a very long list. But that's for another forum.:E

[mad_jock]

Also flying clubs that charge fuel surcharges on top of the rental price. The price of 100LL/UL91 and Diesel(Jet A1) does not change massively between deliveries. Why not increase/decrease the aircraft rental price on a quarterly basis.


It changes sometimes daily and if your not on it and change the price that day you can end up loosing money on the day instead of making it.

Someschools have gone out of buisness due to not keeping up with price increases. Obviously if the price goes down delaying helps out but some customers are on it as soon as it happens as well moaning that the price hasn;t gone down with the fuel cost.

Personally I think a dry price with a public fuel charge is the way to go. And the daily price and fuel charge for a lesson is displayed.

[xrayalpha]

Fuel: gosh, why not use - for basic PPL training - an aircraft with a Rotax 912 and allowed to fly on unleaded.

Take a C42 - fuel burn about 12l an hour at £1.40 pl = £16.80.

Even if fuel goes up to £1.68 a litre that would add £3.36 an hour to the costs.

If you can't absorb that, your profit margins are too thin.

I wouldn't spend my time adjusting daily rates for such small sums: far better to spend the time campaigning for a workable system! Or the ability to use ordinary unleaded - it never seems to cause big problems in microlight land.

Jock, I can see your point for twins etc, though.

[Mickey Kaye]

"Fuel: gosh, why not use - for basic PPL training - an aircraft with a Rotax 912 and allowed to fly on unleaded"

Because we aren't allowed. Dispute nigh on every single 0-200 powered Jodel in the land running perfectly well on the stuff.

[mad_jock]

3.36 an hour is alot when your running 4 machines for 6 hours a day. 90 quid a day.

Over a week thats 2-3 50 hour checks.

2 weeks and your over a grand.

You tend not to chase the pence but as soon as the increase is over 5p from the last time you did the prices you have to do something. And its the schools that don't that get screwed.

When I was full time the boss went on holiday for two weeks and we wern;t allowed to fiddle with the prices.

Day one the fuel went up by 10p a litre. All the instructors did very well that fortnight. Across 4 aircraft we had them in the air for 7.5 hours a day. 6 50 hour checks were required. And an extra fuel bowser had to be sent up so the airport didn't run out.

The boss was chuffed as hell when he saw the techlogs. Then over the next week realised that his sum profit for 400 odd hours flown was under 100 quid which after you take into account all the commercial bank charges etc will have been nothing. If we had been able to increase the price by 5 quid on the day it went up you would have been looking at 2500 profit over the two weeks.

[taxistaxing]

I'm not so bothered about the old/knackered looking aircraft (so long as they are well maintained). But as others have said a complete lack of cusotmer service in any form is grating.

This doesn't have to be expensive at all. Just the basic good manners, common sense and people skills I should have thought most people would learn as kids! It doesn't take a lot to smile, communicate clearly and be respectful. I suspect a lot of it comes down to tight margins and poor salaries paid to admin staff. Pay peanuts get monkeys!

Insistence on using an antiquated and unreliable paper booking system (it's the 21st century for f:mad:'s sake) which leads to the right hand not knowing what the left is doing. This has cost me time and money more than once, getting a taxi to the airfield only be told that the slot has been double booked because someone had misread the booking sheet.

I'm now having similar issues with the same school trying to get a quote for, and book in, night rating slots. You'd think they didn't want the business from the difficulties I've been having, and if they aren't careful they won't be getting it. :ugh:

[xrayalpha]

MJ,

If I could fly those hours a year, I might - well actually, might not - be happy with such wafer thin margins.

As it is, my contingency allowance alone is a tenner an hour!

(And our three aircraft average about 500 hours a year each - but have been known to do 7 hours a day, but not for a fortnight in Scotland!)

Perhaps the problem is that with one hour in the air in a two hour slot, we end up with a 14 hour day at seven hours! Too many of those and you just want a dark room to huddle in!

[mad_jock]

Too many of those and you just want a dark room to huddle in!

Pretty much what happens.

12 hour days during the summer, 900 hours plus per year for the instructors. Days off you are taking planes to maint solo otherwise you you don't have anything to work with on the days you are working.

And its still happening to this day. Last time I did a full day instructing I was absolutely shattered. And gawd knows how I managed doing 6 days a week for 4 months straight during the summer.