Perhaps the easiest solution is for the OP to buy their own aircraft and hire an instructor by the hour, engine start to engine stop of course.
That is actually a wonderful idea. Actually, I might as well go the extra mile and build a whole airport. I hear Australia has land to spare and could use some foreign funds. I'll make sure to revise my economics 101 to fully grasp the complexity of variable vs. fixed costs beforehand.
Flying schools really should arrange their fee structure to prevent unforseen ATC delays on the ground from costing the student a fortune. I'd happily pay a higher hourly air switch rate than a 'lower' rate where I am charged $200 for sitting on the ground waiting for ATC.
Thank
you for breathing some common sense into this thread, at last! Instructors here seem to take the view that I am a forceful defendant of cheaper lessons for students. That couldn't be further from the truth. I am actually quite happy that they are able to make a living out of flight instruction, and by all means, go for it. But like you mentioned and I experienced too many a time by now, I find those delays on ground at the student's expense just preposterous. Yesterday was a great example: although run-up bays are packed, the instructor tells the student to make a start. They carried out their run-ups cornered in the least crowded bay only to taxi to the holding point and and find themselves 4th in line for take off. They ended up waiting for 20 minutes to their clearance. No wonder, all the previous aircraft had done their run-ups and were all lined up for take off. And that's an airport that operates two parallel runways but where instructors always want their students to take-off from the eastern one. No student at this stage will have the awareness or working knowledge to request the western one.
I mean no offense when I say this but your comments show me, as an instructor, that you are a difficult student.
That's rather sticky. What for exactly? Asking questions, is it? Or maybe just wanting to go to the bottom of things or requesting a clear answer? Sorry mate, you and others seem to perceive my post as an attack on your business while this really isn't one. No one gave a constructive answer yet, that's the startling fact. If anything, you should be flattered that a student sees more to those meters than mere numbers. So I'm left guessing that the reason you're all defending yourselves so vigorously is that there might indeed be a little bit of arbitrage in your system, that
maybe a few schools are taking advantage of.
Again: not and never against instructors making a living, quite the opposite: go for it and get fat. Just wondering if there's a
better way to use those meters that will earn schools equally as much financially and maximise students
actual flight time for their money.
Assumption: a flight instructor is happier in the air than on the ground (@Clare prop: in economics term, they have a higher
utility function in the air)
Observation: some flight instructors clearly don't seem to have much of an incentive to minimise time spent on the ground, nor minimise ground time for the student
Suggestion: charge flight time separately from ground time, ie. at different rates, the former obviously at a
higher rate than currently to even things out
Expectation: more actual flight time for each dollar spent by students, less unnecessary ground time and frustration with ATC